1.The applicants seeks an interdict against the first respondent in the following terms:
“(a) 1st Respondent be and is hereby ordered to stop interfering, disturbing, disrupting and encroaching into Applicant’s farm situated at Mutasa known as Subdivision 2 of Lot 1 of Premier Estate for the purpose of effecting improvements or any alterations as well as mining pending the resolution of the matter before the 2nd Respondent through the 3rd Respondent.
(b) 1st Respondent be and is hereby ordered to pay costs of suit on an ordinary scale.” More
This judgment disposes of case numbers HCH 5885/24 and HCH 13/25. The applicant and the respondents are common in the two cases. The applicant is Walter Magaya who described himself in both cases as a “renowned Minister of the Gospel and a passionate football enthusiast” who has “proudly supported local football serving as a dedicated benefactor to the support.” This was rightfully not disputed because the applicants CV is pregnant with proof of financial and logistic support which he has given to the game. The first respondent is Lincolin Mutasa cited in his official capacity as the chairperson of the... More
This is an appeal against the judgment of the Magistrates’ Court dismissing an application by the appellant for bail pending trial on changed circumstances. The court a quo’s judgment was handed down on 14 July 2025. The appellant seeks an order that the appeal be allowed and the decision of the court a quo set aside and substituted with an order admitting him to bail pending trial under case numbers CRB Acc 40/18 and 42/18, subject to the conditions fully outlined in the draft order. More
The applicants filed an application for a declaratory order and consequential relief in terms of s 14 of the High Court Act [Chapter 7:06]. They seek relief in the following terms:
“1. That the Global Compensation Deed by the Government of Zimbabwe as represented by the 1st and 2nd Respondent on one part, and representatives of the former white race farmers of the other part, to pay only former white farmers for improvements on lawfully compulsorily acquired land be and is hereby declared discriminatory on the grounds of race and constitutes unfair, cruel and degrading treatment of the black indigenous... More
This is an application for a declaratur wherein the specific relief is;
“1. That a declaratory order be and is hereby granted that a claim for entitlement to enjoyment and protection against a continued infringement of a fundamental right does not prescribe, hence the applicant association’s qualifying membership do remain each entitled, respectively, to full payment of any arrear monthly s 3 and 4(1) of the WAR VETERANS (Pension Scheme) Regs, SI 280/97, being the war veterans suitable welfare pension, accasioned them over the years, as guaranteed for under s 84(1)(a) of the Constitution and saved under s 27(4), (5),... More
The application was placed before me as an application for quantification. The application is ‘purportedly’ made in terms of Section 89(1)a of the Labour Act as read with Rule 14 of the Labour Court Rules, 2017. There is a dispute between the parties as to the accuracy of the provision cited by Applicant. The issue will be determined below. Sufficient to note at this stage that the application is opposed by the Respondent. More
