This application concerns the rescission of a court order dated 19 October 2022 under HC 6383/22 placing the applicant under corporate rescue. The aforesaid order has a clause providing for the appointment of the corporate rescue practitioner, namely, Obert Madondo. In addition, the order subjects the applicant to the supervision, management and control of the corporate rescue practitioner as provided for by the Insolvency Act [Chapter 6:07]. More
It is a well-established principle of our jurisprudential undertone that this court is loath to interfere with unterminated proceedings at the lower courts. The applicant wishing to convince this court to interfere with such uncompleted proceedings must demonstrate existence of exceptional circumstances. The applicants made tireless and spirited efforts to display exceptional state of affairs but this court is of the opinion that the applicants’ case is not a discernable paragon meeting the requisite threshold. More
: The applicant has approached this court seeking an order declaring all the respondents herein to be in contempt of court for failure to comply with an order given under HH 08/11 in which the applicant was awarded damages in lieu of reinstatement. The applicant seeks that the respondents be imprisoned for 90 days the period of which is to be suspended on condition that the respondents comply with the order within 14 days. The application is opposed by the third respondent only who incidentally is the former employer of the applicant. More
This is an application for the reinstatement of a matter onto the roll. It is opposed.
It appears common cause that there are various matters connected to the present matter. This presentation was deemed abandoned after the applicant failed to comply with Rule 46 of the rules of this Court. More
This is a bail application pending trial. The applicant is charged with the crime of murder as defined in s 47 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 09:23]. It is alleged that on 24 October 22 he had sexual intercourse with Tahana Sibanda without her consent (deceased) and thereafter caused her death by strangulation. The pathologist who examined the remains of the deceased opined that she was sexually violated and died of asphyxia and strangulation. More
The claim was based on the grounds that the forfeitures of the Mining Claims were unlawful, illegal, wrongful and malicious. The issuance of the Special Grant No 7321 (the Special Grant) was similarly unlawful having been issued with the connivance of third defendant. On 22 February 2023, it was agreed by Counsels that the matter proceeds in terms of r 52(1) of this Court’s Rules SI 202/2021, as a stated case on the three (3) issues referred to trial. More
This is an appeal against a determination of the Master of the High Court of 20 January 2022 which is made in terms of s 68 J of the Administration of Estates Act,[Chapter 6:01] as read with r 95 of the High Court Rules, 2021. More
