This is an appeal against the entire judgment of the High Court, sitting at Harare, handed down on 21 April 2021 wherein the court a quo granted a declarator in favour of the first and second respondents More
This is an opposed application for review of taxation proceedings made in terms of Rule 56(2) as read with Rule 73 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2018 and Rule 72 of the High Court Rules, 2021. On 23 February 2022 after considering written submissions by the applicant and both written and oral submissions by the second respondent’s counsel Mr. Madya, I delivered an ex-tempore judgment dismissing the application with costs. The applicant elected not to appear physically but opted in terms of s 29(4) of the Supreme Court Act [Chapter 7:13], to file written submissions. He has requested for written... More
1. This is a chamber application in which the applicant seeks condonation for failure to comply with Rule 38 (1) (a) of the Supreme Court Rules, 2018 and for extension of time within which to file and serve a notice of appeal. The application is opposed. More
This an appeal against the whole judgment of the High Court (the court a quo) sitting at Harare dated 1 March 2022, setting aside the second appellant’s decision to deny the respondent leave to sue the first appellant and granting the respondent leave in terms of s 6 (b) of the Reconstruction of State Indebted Insolvent Companies Act [chapter 24:27] (the Act) to institute proceedings against the first appellant for damages for breach of contract. More
(1) This is an appeal against the whole judgment of the High Court, granting a spoliation order in terms of which the appellants were ordered to restore possession of Danga 16442, Oceana 5545, Reedbuck 2 5535BM, Reedbuck 1 55 35BM and Lucky 8260 BM mining claims (hereinafter referred to as “the mining claims”) to the first respondent and finding the first appellant guilty of contempt of court. More
The appellants are partners of the law firm practising as Mtetwa&Nyambirai Legal Practitioners (“Mtetwa&Nyambirai”). The first respondent is a legal firm, whose principal is Mark Rujuwa, a former associate at the appellant’s law firm. The second respondent was previously employed by the appellants as an accounts clerk at their law firm. By virtue of his position as an accounts clerk, the second respondent was also a custodian of the keys to the safe ofMtetwa&Nyambirai.
Sometime in February 2022, Mtetwa&Nyambirayi discovered that the second respondent had stolen ZWL$32 000 000.00 from its trust account and converted the same to United States... More
The first respondent is a church organization whereas the appellant is a member of a housing cooperative known as Joseph Musika Housing Cooperative. Although the Housing Cooperative was a party to the proceedings in the court a quo, it has not appealed against the court’sjudgment against it. The second respondent is a government Minister and owner of the state land in dispute. The disputed piece of land is commonly known as Stand Number 16549 Hatcliff Harare (the stand). More
