Facts in this matter seem to be common cause save as may be specified. The Applicant and the Respondent are companies duly registered as such in terms of the laws of Zimbabwe. Some time in 2004, the Minister of Lands compulsorily acquired the property known as Lot 1A of Teviotdale, measuring 147,1169 morgen, (hereinafter called “the property”) held under certificate of title number 3873/56 which at the material time belonged to the Applicant. This piece of property was later awarded, through the offer letter, to the Respondent in 2011. The Applicant later approached this court under case number HC 3383/20... More
Sometime in 2019 the applicant filed an application in the court a quo in terms of rule 359 (8) of the High Court Rules, 1971 wherein he sought the setting aside of the third respondent’s confirmation of a sale of his immovable property in execution of a judgment debt that he owed to the first respondent. The application was dismissed. Dissatisfied by the decision of the court a quo, the applicant filed a notice of appeal under SCB 29/20. However, the notice of appeal was fatally defective because there was no indication whether or not leave to appeal was necessary;... More
[1] This is an opposed chamber application for condonation of late noting of appeal and extension of time within which to note an appeal. The application is brought in terms of r 43 of the Supreme Court Rules 2018 pursuant to the applicant’s failure to file a proper notice of appeal within 15 days of the judgment intended to be appealed against in breach of r 37. More
1. This is a chamber application for reinstatement of the applicant’s appeal in terms of r 70 (2) of the Supreme Court Rules 2018 (the Rules). The application is pursuant to the Registrar’s order deeming the appeal abandoned and dismissed in terms of r 53 (1) of the Rules. The appeal was deemed abandoned and dismissed for want of filing heads of argument on time. The application is opposed. More
The debate over what came first, the chicken or the egg has never been resolved to finality. In casu, however, the question of what is in a chicken has a one- word answer to the plaintiff and the defendant - ‘everything’. Even more intriguing is the use of the word ‘luv’ by both of them in their registered trademarks. More
On 9 July 2021 the respondent was found guilty of unprofessional, dishonourable and unworthy conduct. He had been charged with contravening s 23 (1) (c) of the Legal Practitioners Act [Chapter 27:07] (the Act) as read with sections 70 E and 70F of the Law Society of Zimbabwe Regulations, 1982 (SI 314 of 1982) and s 23 (2) (b) of the Act. It had been alleged that he failed:
(a) to provide his client with a comprehensive debt collection report;
(b) to account for the deposit the client had paid to his firm.
(c) to renounce agency at the request... More
: The respondent was registered as a legal practitioner in March 1995. He practiced for two years before joining Tedco Industries from January 1997 to December 2003. Thereafter he, in January 2004, returned to private practice and has been practicing law since then. He practices under the style Madanhi, Mugadza & Company Attorneys At Law.The applicant filed the present application seeking an order for the deregistration of the respondent as a Legal Practitioner, Notary Public and Conveyancer. It moved us to direct the respondent to pay the applicant’s expenses incurred in connection with these proceedings.
The applicant alleges that the... More
