The applicant approached this court on an urgent basis seeking to temporary interdict the respondent from closing its bank accounts pending the return date. The provisional order sought is couched in the following terms:
TERMS OF THE FINAL ORDER SOUGHT
That you show cause to this Honourable Court why a final order should not be made in the following terms:
It is declared that sanctions issued under Executive Order 13818 of the United States Government and the Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List by the United States of America’s Office of Foreign Assets Control under the Global Magnisky Program or... More
The applicant was arraigned before the first respondent on 8 August 2023 on charge on Frand as defined in s 136 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23]. Applicant pleaded not guilty and the matter proceeded to trial with the second respondent leading its evidence in a bid to prove its case. There after the second respondent closed its case and the applicant proceeded to apply for discharge in terms of s 198(3) of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act [Chapter 9:07] (The Act). The application was opposed by the second respondent. The first respondent made a... More
The applicant is Stewart Phillip Cranswick a minority shareholder in the first respondent. The first respondent is Meikles limited a publicly listed company incorporated in terms of the laws of Zimbabwe. The second respondent is Meikles Consolidated Holdings (Private) Limited, a corporate registered in terms of the laws of Zimbabwe and the largest shareholder (holding 48,38% of the issued share capital) in the first respondent. The third respondent is John Ralph Thomas Moxon, a director in the second respondent and a chairman of the first respondent. The fourth respondent is the Zimbabwe Stock Exchange, a corporation set up in terms... More
This is a ruling on a point of law raised in a parent dispute whose fuller facts I set out under judgment number HH 93-24. In essence, applicant approached the court on motion seeking an order declaring two agreements of sale of land between itself and first respondent invalid. It also prayed for the refund of purchase price in the sum of US$220,000. This is the extant dispute between the parties More
The applicants approached this court seeking the review of the first respondent’s decision to allocate a piece of communal land in Wada Nhira Village, Chief Neshangwe, Chikomba District of Mashonaland East Province to the third respondent. The application was made in terms of s 4(1) of the Administrative Justice Act [Chapter 10:28] (the AJA). More
At the onset of oral argument in this Court, the both parties raised points in limine. Appellant’s points mainly attack the validity of the Response filed on behalf of respondent whilst respondent’s points attack the validity of the appeal. The Court is sitting as a result of the appeal filed by appellant. If the appeal is invalid as argued by respondent then all the other points fall away. This is because the Court’s jurisdiction is triggered by the filing of a valid appeal. As a result the Court will consider respondent’s points first. More
In this action matter, the plaintiffs (the Kudyas) seek transfer of property known as Stand 2994 Prospect Township of Stand 322 of Prospect measuring 4026 square metres purchased in 2004 from the first defendant, Agson Afuta Chioza in 2004. The evidence, on behalf of the plaintiffs, was given by his wife Abigail Kudya. This was under a power of attorney given by her husband Tamuona Luxton Kudya. She is also the second plaintiff. More
