The Applicant was aggrieved and has approached this Court for direct access in terms of s 167 (5) (a) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe. The Applicant submits that three of his fundamental rights enshrined in Chapter 4 of the Constitution were infringed by the Supreme Court in SC 09/20 through judgment number SC-24-22. As already noted, the three rights that the applicant alleges were infringed are the right to the protection of the law as enshrined in terms of s 56 (1) of the Constitution, the right to a fair hearing enshrined in s 69 (2) of the Constitution and... More
The parties have been in and out of the courts embroiled in ferocious battles over the ownership, possession and occupation of a certain piece of property commonly known as the Remainder of Subdivision C of Plot 6 of Lots 190, 191, 193, 194 and 195 of Highlands Estate of Welmoed also known as number 41 Ridgeway North, Highlands, Harare (the property). More
When this matter resumed on 16 January 2023, the matter could not be heard. The reason being that counsel for the Plaintiff made an oral application for the recusal of this court. He emphasized then that the reason for the recusal had absolutely nothing to do with this Lordship’s integrity or bias on the Lordship’s part but premised upon first Defendant’s conduct in causing another Lordship to recuse himself, and the Plaintiff had developed a discomfort to have this matter presided over by this Court. The counsels for the first Defendant challenged the application on the basis that they had... More
1. This is an application brought in terms of s 123 (1) (a) (i) of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act [ Chapter 9:07] as read with Rule 90 (4) (e) of the High Court Rules, 2021 for the admission of the applicant to bail pending appeal against conviction and sentence. More
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
