[1] On the17th of March 1997 applicant entered into a lease agreement over property stand number 3608 Mzari Extension, Chinhoyi with the first respondent.
[2] An agreement of sale of the same property was transacted the following year on the 13th of March 1998 after the payment of an agreed deposit. More
On 5 December 2023 this Court issued an order striking out the respondents opposing papers and ordered that the appeal should proceed as an unopposed matter. Following that order, the appeal was subsequently allowed and the decision of the designated agent which had been appealed against was set aside. The appellant was to be reinstated or paid damages in lieu of reinstatement. This subsequent order was issued on 6 December 2023. The then responded now seeks to challenge the order of the 6th of December2023 in this application for condonation and rescission of judgment. More
[ 1] This dispute traces its origin to the Land Reform Programme. For a recap on the purpose and background to that programme, see BHUNU JA`s concise treatise in TBIC Investments (Private) Limited & Anor v Kennedy Mangenje & 5 Ors SC 13-18.
[ 2] At stake herein is a one-hundred-hectare tract of state land located in the environs east of Harare. The applicant (“N-Frays”) is a land developer. Its objects in such capacity include securing vacant (farm) land and taking all necessary steps to establish thereon a residential township.
[ 3] First respondent (“the Minister”) is an administrative authority... More
On the 9th of February 2024 an order was made striking the applicant’s application for condonation for late filing an application for review, off the roll . Parties have now requested for reasons. More
This is not the first time that a preliminary issue has been raised on behalf of the respondent. On 9 February 2024 this Court made an order striking this same matter off the roll for non - compliance with the rules of this Court. This followed a preliminary point which was raised on behalf the respondent. Another preliminary point has once again been taken on behalf of the respondent. The Court did not enquire as to why counsel for the respondent has adopted the attitude of raising preliminary issues in a piecemeal fashion. The respondent could have raised the present... More
Applicants filed what they termed an urgent chamber application for Stay of Execution. The relief sought is couched as follows;
TERMS OF THE FINAL ORDER SOUGHT
“That you show cause to this Honourable court if any, why a final order should not be made in the following terms;
1. First respondent be and is here by interdicted from filing any eviction court processes against the applicant pending the finalization of HCH 6299/23.
2. The first respondent shall pay the costs of this application on the scale of legal practitioner and client. More
The third defendant then requested for reasons for the postponement. These were my reasons.
On 23 October 2024 plaintiff’s counsel of record wrote to the Deputy Registrar, Mutare advising of plaintiff’s intention to make an application on the hearing date, 28 October 2024, to have the matter postponed to a later convenient date because Advocate L Uriri was not available. In response to the same letter third defendant’s counsel wrote a letter indicating that third defendant will oppose the application for postponement since such would prolong and delay the resolution of the dispute. More
