The applicant seeks an order confirming that the agreement of sale which it entered into with the first respondent in respect of certain immovable property is valid and binding. Pursuant to such confirmation, it seeks an order evicting the first respondent and all those claiming their right on occupation through her from the said residential property. The property in question was identified as Stand No. 1191 Mandara Township, Zvishavane (“the property”). More
The applicants` counsel failed to capitalise on the facility provided by rule 53 (2) of the High Court (Commercial Division) Rules SI 123-20 (“the Commercial Court Rules”) to manage postponements. As a result, applicants failed to meet a set down commitment at 12:00 noon on 27 June 2024.I proceeded to strike its matter off the roll with costs. Applicants had in that matter sought an order to place respondent under corporate rescue in terms of section 124 of the Insolvency Act [Chapter 6:07]. More
1. This is an appeal against the whole judgement of the High Court (“the court a quo”) in which it upheld the respondent`s special plea of prescription and dismissed the appellant’s claim. More
This is an appeal against the decision of the respondent employer’s appeals committee which upheld the guilty verdict and the dismissal penalty which was meted out on the appellant by the disciplinary committee following allegations of fraud in breach of SI 124/23. More
This is an appeal against the appellant’s dismissal from respondent’s employ. The following are the grounds of appeal and I quote:
‘1. The appeals authority erred at law in making a finding that the Appellant was guilty of failing to obey an order on the 8th November 2021 when allegations against the appellant on the first charge was that Appellant disobeyed an order issued on the 29th October 2021.
2. The appeals authority erred at law in failing to make a finding that the charge of willful disobedience to a lawful order was unsustainable to the extent the Appellant had... More
The applicant seeks relief by way of summary judgement. The relief sought is set out in the draft order accompanying the application as follows:
“1. Summary judgement be and is hereby granted.
2. Defendant shall pay the sum of US$33 000 to plaintiff or the equivalent thereof at the prevailing inter-bank rate made up as follows;
a) US$18 000 for explosives sold to the defendant.
b) US$14 500 being arrear rentals for mining compressors.
c) US$500.00 being damages for repair of the damaged compressor.
3. Interest thereon at the prescribed rate from the date of summons to date of full... More
This matter came as an appeal against the whole judgment of the Magistrate sitting at Harare Magistrate Court. Plaintiff issued summons for defendant’s eviction from stand 7593 Warren Park Harare (hereafter called the property).Plaintiff contended that he purchased the property in 2006. Defendant contended that he purchased the property in 2002. The property in question, an undeveloped vacant stand was owned by Saltana Enterprises (Pvt) Ltd (Saltana). Saltana underwent judicial management. Defendant bought the property from Ernest Pahwaringira a senior director of Saltana in his personal capacity. Plaintiff bought the property from the judicial manager under Tudor House Consultants. Plaintiff... More
