Welcome to Midlands State University Library

Court Judgements



Browse Court Judgements by year
This is an application for contempt of court wherein the applicant seeks an order in the following terms: More

Respondent faced allegations of misconduct and a hearing was given. Meanwhile, Respondent attended at a Doctor’s rooms and the Doctor instructed that she take a rest. This was communicated to the Respondent through the Matron who was a senior supervisor at Respondent’s work-station. Meanwhile, Respondent’s representatives approached the Respondent with a view to having the matter postponed to a further date for a hearing. This was not entertained by the Hearing Officer who ruled that the matter was to proceed. The matter was heard in Respondent’s absence. Respondent made an application for review to this Court. Both parties filed submissions... More

Before the court is a mining dispute. The parties herein elected to progress their trial cause as a special case in terms of r 52 of the High Court Rules 2021.The agreed statement of facts recorded the following events; - [ 2] The defendant sold to plaintiff, by agreement dated 11 October 2021, its rights and interest in a set of mining blocks for a total consideration of US$ 2,050,000. The blocks were registered under number 41356BM, 41357B, 41358BM and 41359M and located at a place described as Berryl-Rose in the Mfurudzi Safari Area of Shamva District. I shall refer... More

This is a court application in which the relief sought is the following declaratory order: 1.That the decision of the first respondent declaring forfeited to the State property belonging to the applicant, the property in question being four motor vehicles and their trailers, namely TRUCK HLH056FS (TRAILER TVH294GP); TRUCK HLH051FS (TRAILER FZ25WGGP); TRUCK HLH049FS (TRAILER VDW723GP) and TRUCK HJZ 717FS (TRAILER JF58CWGP), be and is hereby declared null and void and of no force or effect. AS CONSEQUENTIAL RELIEF, IT IS ORDERED: 2.That the decision of the first respondent declaring forfeited to the State property belonging to the applicant, the... More

The appellant and the respondent executed a written contract on 12 May 2018, in terms of which the appellant was required to perform construction work for the respondent at a total cost of US$36 962.00. The contract stipulated that the respondent was required to pay a deposit of US$10 000 and thereafter pay the balance in instalments of US$ 900.00 per month over 31 months. The respondent duly made her payments in terms of the contract until February 2020 when she advised that she could not pay the money due to ill health. More

This application is for an order under the rei vindicatio remedy to recover possession and control of property. Put differently, the applicant seeks respondent’s eviction from the property known as THE REMAINDER of SUBDIVISION C OF LOT 6 OF LOTS 190, 191, 193,194 AND 195 HIGHLANDS ESTATE OF WELMOED also known as 41 RIDGEWAY NORTH HIGHLANDS, HARARE “the property. More

The facts upon which the present application was predicated were given as follows:- Around May 2020, the applicant said it started noticing illegal mining activity around the claims. Upon investigation it determined that the illegal activities were being sponsored by a local traditional leader, acting Chief Nyamhanza. The applicant reported this to the second respondent’s offices and requested assistance to remove the illegal miners. The respondent in turn sought police assistance and the illegal miners were removed. In April 2022, the illegalities resurfaced. Investigations revealed once more that another local chief called Chief Chimoyo was making attempts to have the... More