Welcome to Midlands State University Library

Court Judgements



Browse Court Judgements by year
This matter was placed before me as an Urgent Chamber Application. I soon directed that the Applicant serve the Respondents and the matter be set down for arguments. That was done. More

The First Respondent is employed by the Appellant. First Respondent was suspended from employment by the Appellant. The Appellant also reported the matter to the police resulting in the arrest of the First Respondent. The First Respondent’s bail conditions barred him from visiting his workplace. It is also common cause that First Respondent’s suspension was without salary and benefits. First Respondent referred his matter to Second Respondent and the latter determined that First Respondent’s suspension was illegal having regard to the provisions of the Code of Conduct. Appellant is dissatisfied with the decision and has approached this for relief. More

The applicant in this case neglected to look ahead. He was convicted on his own plea of guilty to contravening s 60A (3) (a) and (b) of the Electricity Act [Chapter 13:19] i.e. Tampers, Cuts, Damages, Destroys or Interferes with any Apparatus for Generating, Transmitting, Distributing or Supplying Electricity. The allegations in count 1 were that on 31 August 2021 he proceeded to a farm called Rathga in the district of Banket where he cut and vandalized copper wires that transmitted electricity. The wires were about 30 metres in length. In count 2 he was alleged to have in a... More

1. This appeal is without merit. 2. The first and second appellants were convicted of seven counts of assault as defined in s 89 (1) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23] (“the Code”). With all the counts treated as one for the purposes of sentence each appellant was sentenced to 20 months imprisonment of which 3 months were suspended for 5 years on the usual conditions of good behaviour. More

The plaintiff and the defendant were in a customary law union with effect from 2010 when the defendant paid lobola for the plaintiff. They lived as husband and wife from then and three children were born to them namely, Nicole, Norah and Fortune. During the subsistence of their union, the parties acquired various assets which include an immovable property known as No 29 Robert Mugabe Road, Kadoma, household goods and effects and there is a mining business set up which the defendant was running. More

This is an application to re-open the administration of a finalized deceased estate. The estate has been administered and finalized in terms of the provisions of the Administration of Estates Act [Chapter 6:01]. More

This is an urgent chamber applicant for stay of execution of the judgment in HC 877/22. The judgment was granted in default of the applicant on 2 March 2023 following the failure by the applicant to attend the pre-trial conference. More