Welcome to Midlands State University Library

Court Judgements



Browse Court Judgements by year
Plaintiff issued summons against the defendants claiming:- (a) An order declaring the agreements of sale by plaintiffs to 1st defendant of shares 20 and 21 Ascot Mews, Bulawayo to be null and void and of no force or effect whatsoever. (b) An order directing the 1st defendant and those who occupy through him to vacate shares 20 and 21 Ascot Mews, Bulawayo. (c) An order directing 1st defendant to pay occupational rental for share 20 and share 21 Ascot Mews, Bulawayo of USD2 000 monthly or its ZWL equivalent calculated from April 2018 to 31 May 2019 (the amount of... More

: Through a s 5 notice which was issued in terms of the Land Acquisition Act, Government compulsorily acquired Sub-division A of Lendy Estate (“the farm”) which measures 2780.97 hectares in extent. Prior to its acquisition by Government, the farm belonged to the applicant which is a legal entity. It was acquired on 12 July, 2002. A portion of the farm falls within the boundaries of the municipality of Marondera, according to the applicant. More

Plaintiff issued summons against the defendant claiming: “(a) US$40 000,00 being defamation damages to plaintiff’s reputation or good name (sic). (b) Costs of suit on an attorney and client scale.” In paragraph 6 of the declaration it is averred that: “On the 11th of December 2018, at Bulawayo, an article titled “Dodgy lawyer costs Law Society $4 million” was published in the Chronicle Newspaper. The said newspaper is widely published in the Republic of Zimbabwe and is widely read by the general public. Also the newspaper is published through the internet. The article was written by the 2nd defendant, edited... More

The applicants are erstwhile employees of the respondent. It is common cause that the employment contracts of the applicants were terminated on notice. A dispute arose in relation to quantification of the applicant’s dues consequent on the termination aforesaid. A designated agent L Masvingwe presided over the dispute at Bulawayo and issued the following ruling on 10 May, 2019: “COURT RULING WHEREFORE, after carefully analyzing the facts the law, I wake the following ruling That; 1. The first respondent is ordered to pay the outstanding balances due to D Mazambara and 7 Others a gross total of $194 220.20 according... More

On the 24th of November 2021, 3rd respondent’s enforcement team based at Beitbridge or routine compliance checks intercepted a foreign registered truck towing taut liner interlink trailers bearing registration numbers JJ287H GP/KK3579MP; KK5571MP in a tunnel towards an imports scanner. Upon request, the driver presented Bill of Entry number C84043 dated 27 November 2021 indicating that the truck was carrying diapers. The truck was referred for scanning to confirm the goods reflected on the declaration. Before the image analyst could start scanning, the driver jumped out of the truck and sped off towards the last check point. The driver abandoned... More

MAXWELL J: On 24 November 2021, a spoliation order in favour of the applicant was issued. On 26 November 2021, a request for reasons for the judgment was made for the purpose of an appeal under SC456/21. These are they: On 17 November 2021 applicant approached this court on an urgent basis seeking among other things, a spoliation order against the first respondent. She wanted immediate restoration of her exclusive occupation of 12 Beach Road, Borrowdale, Harare. Applicant stated that she is married to first respondent but they are in the midst of a divorce, case number HC 5353/21. The... More

: In this urgent application the applicant prays for a provisional order which is couched as follows: “TERMS OF FINAL ORDER SOUGHT: That you show cause to the Honourable Court why a final order should not be made in the following terms: 1. The 1st, 2nd and 3rd Respondent be and are hereby ordered to vacate and ensure that its officers are removed from the property called Haydon Farm Mt Hampden Zvimba. 2. The 1st and 2nd Respondent’s officers are hereby interdicted and barred from entering said property. 3. The 1st and 2nd Respondents shall pay the costs of this... More