Welcome to Midlands State University Library

Court Judgements



Browse Court Judgements by year
This is an urgent chamber application by the Applicant in which she is seeking the following relief. “ORDER SOUGHT 1. The applicant be and is hereby declared the legal owner of Berea 17, Berea 18 and site 232 under coordinates listed in Schedule “A”. 2. The survey report issued by the 6th Respondent on the 31st January, 2022 be and is hereby declared null and void. More

The term “mistress” is universally used to refer to a woman(other than the man’s wife) who has a sexual relationship with a married man. In Zimbabwe such a woman has earned the rather unusual moniker of “small house” implying that she is the “less significant” woman in that man’s life. This present matter is an appeal against the decision of the Magistrates Court sitting at Bikita granting an application brought by the man’s wife (the respondent) for the eviction of such a “mistress” (the 1st appellant)from a rural homestead situate in that district. That homestead is referred to as the... More

Respondent appealed to the lower court against a decision by Chief Nembire which had been passed on 28 November 2020. The judgment had been given in default against one Robert Kupfuwamhandu. The judgment, in essence, awarded Appellant land which was being occupied by the Respondent herein. Respondent was aggrieved and appealed to the lower court. The lower court set aside the judgment by Chief Nembire and ordered that Respondent continue residing at his communal homestead and use his fields as he used to do. Appellant was aggrieved and noted an appeal in this Court. More

Applicant, 32 years old, was convicted of 2 counts of stock theft and sentenced to 18 years imprisonment. He appealed against conviction and sentence and the appeal is pending before this court. He now applies for bail pending appeal. The application is opposed by the State. On 27 May 2022 I dismissed the application and on 22 June 2022 applicant’s legal practitioners requested written reasons for the dismissal. More

JEFFERSON BANDA AND CHRISTINE MUPATSI AND GILBERT KARIKUIMBA AND MICHAEL RUPANGA AND JOSEPH TAKAVINGOFA AND BRIDGETTE DULANI AND MICHAEL GEZI AND JACKY HETYA AND LANGTON NYEVE AND CONRAD MUZVURA VERSUS WALTER TAKANHIKE AND MOSES GWAUNZA AND KWADZANAYI CHIKAZHE AND UPENYU CHITUMBA AND ADAM NHAMO AND STEMBILE CHIKUMBA AND CEPHAS RANGANAI AND ALICE MHANGA AND AMON MUTENGU AND FABION CHIDZUDZU AND JOU CHITEURE AND JOSEPH RUZANI AND JEMIAS CHINDIYA AND REJOICE DHAVE AND DANIEL PHIRI AND ELLIOT HUVADZE AND EFFORT MUNYANYI AND FORTUNATE TAKAIDZA AND MUCHENA CAROLINE AND EFIAS CHIHLENGWE AND CAROLINE MURIDZERI AND JIMMY CHATIMA AND NYASHA NCUBE AND CUMPAS MATAMBURA AND TRYMORE CHIDENDE AND MARTIN GWATIDZO AND PERPETUAL MASHIRI AND SIKHUMBUDZO GUMBI AND CECILIA CHIPEMBA AND EDSON TIDIGU AND SIKHUMBUDZO NDUNA AND HERBERT MPOFU AND ELIOT BVUNDUKAI AND NYASHA KACHIKAWO AND CAIN NCUBE AND KELVIN CHIDZIKWE AND JOEL MURANDA AND CHRISTOPHER HAPAMIRE AND LESLY MUNYANYI AND RAYMOND MUTUNHIRA AND LANCELOT SHUMBA AND JACOB HOMWE AND MAVIS KATURUZA AND JONAH MUSHONGA AND NKULULEKO TSHUMA AND THOKOZANI NCUBE AND RICHARD CHIWIRE AND COMMERCIAL WORKERS UNION OF ZIMBABWE (2022-12-07)
At the center of the parties’ dispute is control of Commercial Workers Union of Zimbabwe (“the union”). This is a registered trade union which represents the interests of workers in the commercial and allied sectors in Zimbabwe. More

The applicants and the respondent are embroiled in action proceedings in this court in HC 10410/14 and HC 10411/14. The respondent is the plaintiff in both actions, which were consolidated for purposes of trial. The cases could not proceed to pre-trial conference because of respondent’s failure to file documents necessary to progress the said matters to that stage. The applicants approached this court under HC 2211/21 for an order to compel the respondent to file the requisite documents. On 16 June 2021, CHITAPIJ granted the following order in chambers: “IT IS ORDERED THAT 1. Respondent shall, within seven days from... More

This is an appeal against the Magistrate’s decision allowing the respondent to amend her summons in the court below. The context is as follows: In 2014, the appellant accidentally damaged the respondent’s car which he was driving without the respondent’s consent. In November 2016,the parties entered into an agreement whereby the appellant accepted liability. A memorandum of agreement was then signed in which the appellant and one other undertook to replace the vehicle within three months. It was further agreed that there placement vehicles should not exceed 100 000 km and that the value of the vehicle was US$4500.00. The... More