This is an appeal against the judgment of the Magistrates Court sitting at Murambinda.
The respondent in this appeal was the applicant while the appellants were the respondents in the court a quo.
The respondent filed an application for an interdict against the appellants More
In 1975 the applicant married the deceased in terms of an unregistered customary law union. On 26 June 1981 the parties registered their marriage in terms of the African Marriages Act [Chapter 238]. The parties have six children who are now adults. On 11 May 2018 the deceased married Masuku in terms of the Marriage Act [Chapter 5:11]. There is one minor child of this marriage. Obert Dube died on 4 January 2022. At the time of his death, both marriages were subsisting. On 19 November 2021 the deceased executed a Will, and on 14 February 2022 the Master of... More
The background to this matter may be summarized as follows, that the parties were married to each other, and their marriage was dissolved on 19 May 2022. The division of the assets of the parties was predicated on a consent paper. In respect of the immovable property, the court granted an order (HC 1131/21) couched as follows: -
“House No. 1449 Mahatshula North, Bulawayo be and is hereby awarded to the plaintiff and defendant on a ratio of 6:4 with the plaintiff being awarded 60% and the defendant 40% of the property. The plaintiff is awarded the option to buy... More
On 31 July, 2012 a legal entity which is known as Roberts Drive Investments (Private) Limited (“Roberts”) sold to Kangausaru Investments (Private) Limited (“Kangausaru”), the first respondent herein, 3000 Class F Shares. The shares relate to Unit No. 8, 75 Roberts Drive, Msasa, Harare (“the property”). More
Before me are two cases namely HC 50/15 and HC 3500/16 which were consolidated. The parties were husband and wife whose marriage was solemnized in Harare on 31 December 1983 and which marriage was terminated by a decree of divorce issued by the High Court of England. A decree nisi was issued on 1 December 2013 while the final decree absolute was issued on 18 December 2014. More
This is an application for the review of the respondent’s disciplinary committee decision. Applicant raises 3 issues for review. The first one is that he was wrongly charged under the Tourism Industry Code instead of under the Procurement Act. Secondly he says that the Chairman did not have jurisdiction to hear his matter as he was biased on account of the fact that he was husband to applicant’s superior. Thirdly he argues that the complainant in the matter was his immediate supervisor and signatory to the procurement process now under challenge so he gave a biased account of the events... More
This is an application for the review of the respondent’s disciplinary committee decision. Applicant raises 3 issues for review. The first one is that he was wrongly charged under the Tourism Industry Code instead of under the Procurement Act. Secondly he says that the Chairman did not have jurisdiction to hear his matter as he was biased on account of the fact that he was husband to applicant’s superior. Thirdly he argues that the complainant in the matter was his immediate supervisor and signatory to the procurement process now under challenge so he gave a biased account of the events... More
