This is an application for an anti-dissipation interdict which seeks to bar the first respondent from extracting and removing lithium ore from its mining claim. Apparently, the applicant which has a registered mining claim ‘Lith 15’ (Registration Claim GM 8172 BM) is locked in a serious mining dispute of encroachment with the first respondent which has a registered mining claim ‘Sandawana AV8’ (Registration Number 17332BM). As a result of the encroachment dispute, there is a mining area which is disputed between the two parties which each party claims be its area. More
This is an opposed court application seeking a declaratory order in terms of the High Court Act [Chapter 7:06], where the applicant seeks an order confirming the validity of the contract of employment contract which she entered into with the respondent on 5 May 2020. More
Sometime in 2005 the land in dispute was acquired by the State in terms of section 16B (4) of the former Constitution of Zimbabwe. It was subsequently ceded to the 2nd respondent for the protection and management of wildlife therein. Applicant and 2nd respondent entered into a five (5) year lease agreement wherein applicant would occupy Lot 4 of Devuli Ranch held under Deed of Transfer 5251/92 and conduct hunting business on it. This lease agreement was entered into on 13th December 2017, a week after 1st respondent had issued summons in HC 3183/17. In that case, 1st respondent was... More
On 21 June 2023, the appellant amongst other prospective candidates, successfully lodged his nomination papers as a presidential candidate before the Nomination Court. The first respondent became aware of the appellant’s nomination and acceptance of candidature through the social media. He took exception to the acceptance of the appellant’s candidature.
In a letter dated 22 June 2023 addressed to the Chief Elections Officer, the first respondent stated that the appellant had not been resident in his constituency and in the country for a continuous period of eighteen (18) months. He further stated that the appellant did not therefore meet the... More
Two preliminary issues were raised on behalf of the respondent. These are:
(i) that there is no cause of action.
(ii) estoppel – that the applicant waived his rights when he received a package from the employer following retrenchment and as such he is estopped from challenging the retrenchment process. More
The applicant and the first respondent as cited in the heading are duly incorporated companies in terms of the laws of Zimbabwe. The two companies are at logger heads over mining titles and rights to mining claims described as:
a) Rushinga Dolomite 2 Reg No. 37309 BM
b) Rushinga Dolomite 3 Reg No. 37312 BM
c) Rushinga Dolomite 3A Reg No. 37313 BM
d) Rushinga Dolomite 4 Reg No. 37311 BM
e) Rushinga Dolomite 5 Reg No. 37310 BM
f) Rushinga Dolomite 6 Reg No. 37308 BM
g) Rushinga Dolomite 7 Reg No. 37307 BM
The applicant prays for an... More
In this opposed application for review, applicant is seeking an order for the setting aside of both the conviction and sentence imposed on him by the respondents, the permanent stay of the prosecution of his offence in violation of paragraph 34 of the schedule to the Police Act [Chapter11:08], and cost of suit. More
