At the center of the dispute of the applicant and the first respondent (“the parties”) is a piece of land which is situated in the district of Salisbury called Stand 223, Marimba Park Township, Marimba Park, Harare (“the property”). It is 2011 square meters in extent. It is held under Deed of Transfer 3607/21. More
First and second respondents made a court application in the Magistrates Court, seeking an interdict to bar applicant from cutting or removing timber from a woodlot allegedly belonging to first and second respondent. Applicant averred that the woodlot is situated within its demarcated area leased to it by Forestry Commission.
The court a quo concluded that there were material disputes of fact and ordered that the matter be referred to trial and that papers filed by the parties constitute the pleadings. Applicant was dissatisfied by the magistrate’s ruling and brought this application. Applicant contends that the decision of the court... More
The plaintiff, as Chief Executive Officer of Murehwa District Council, issued summons on 15 June 2023, claiming a sum of US$500 000.00 as damages from the defendant for alleged defamation. The defendant having failed to enter an appearance to defend, the plaintiff applied for default judgment in motion court. He was requested on 19 and 26 July to attend to his affidavit of evidence and to justify the amount claimed. He filed supplementary affidavits. More
An application was brought before me in terms of section 3 and 4 of the Administrative Justice Act [Chapter 10:28] (“the AJA”) and, alternatively, under the common law. The application was filed on 21 May 2019, and was heard on 20 May 2022. Applicant seeks the setting aside of the first respondent’s decision which confirmed the sale of his property in execution of a judgment debt. The property in question is 1 Holwood Lane, Umwinsdale, Glenlorne, Harare (“the property”), and the decision Sheriff’s decision is being challenged on four grounds. The first is that the property was sold for an... More
This is an appeal against a determination by the Chairperson of the Appeals Committee which determination was handed down on 15 October 2020. The material background facts to the matter are as follows;
The three Respondents in this matter were all employed by the Applicant. They were all separately charged with an act of misconduct namely “gross negligence” under and in terms of the relevant Code of Conduct for the Printing and Packaging Industry. More
This application concerns the rescission of a court order dated 19 October 2022 under HC 6383/22 placing the applicant under corporate rescue. The aforesaid order has a clause providing for the appointment of the corporate rescue practitioner, namely, Obert Madondo. In addition, the order subjects the applicant to the supervision, management and control of the corporate rescue practitioner as provided for by the Insolvency Act [Chapter 6:07]. More
It is a well-established principle of our jurisprudential undertone that this court is loath to interfere with unterminated proceedings at the lower courts. The applicant wishing to convince this court to interfere with such uncompleted proceedings must demonstrate existence of exceptional circumstances. The applicants made tireless and spirited efforts to display exceptional state of affairs but this court is of the opinion that the applicants’ case is not a discernable paragon meeting the requisite threshold. More
