Plaintiff issued summons against Defendant claiming:
(a)Payment of the sum of USD$ 80 925-00 (eighty thousand nine hundred and twenty-five united states dollars), or the equivalent in local currency at the prevailing official rate on the date of payment.
(b)Interest there on at the agreed rate of 1% per month, compounded monthly, calculated from 1 January 2022 to date of payment in full.
(c)Costs of suit on Attorney and Client Scale. More
1. The applicant is a property development company. The second respondent is a regulatory body established in terms of the Estate Agents Act [Chapter 27:17] to provide for the registration of estate agents and the regulation of the practice of estate agents in Zimbabwe.
2. On 6th of July 2023, the first respondent caused to be published (in print and online versions) through the second respondent in its Herald newspaper, a notice headed “Estate Agents Council of Zimbabwe: BOGUS AGENT PUBLIC NOTICE ALERT under the list of what first respondent called “Unregistered Firms and Individuals practicing as ESTATE AGENTS”, first... More
: The Applicant in this matter is a company registered as such in terms of the company law of Zimbabwe. The first Respondent is the presiding officer who granted the warrant of search and seizure which is under review. The second to fourth Respondents are employees of the fifth Respondent. The fifth Respondent is a constitutional and public entity charged with the responsibility of investigating corruption. More
This is an appeal against a judgment of the Magistrates Court (the court a quo) dismissing an application by the appellant for the correction of an order of that court.
The appeal is opposed by the respondent.
The material background facts to the matter are as follows: The appellant instituted a claim by way of summons against the respondent in the court a quo claiming payment of a sum of US$36 460.00 together with interest thereon at the prescribed rate, collection commission and attorney-client costs. More
MUSITHU J: Before the court is an application for rescission of a default judgment granted by this court in HCH 1748/24 on 19 June 2024. The application was made in terms of r 27(1) of the High Court rules, 2021. The first applicant’s founding affidavit was deposed to by the third applicant in his capacity as the authorised representative of the first applicant. The application was opposed by the first respondent. A notice of filing was issued and filed on behalf of the second and third respondents by the Civil Division of the Attorney General’s office. They indicated that they... More
On the 21st November 2023 this dismissed appeal’s appeal and upheld his dismissal from employment by respondents. The judgment was appealed to the Supreme Court which issued an order on 18th July 2024 in the following terms, More
This ruling is made pursuant to a preliminary objection raised by the third respondent’s counsel at the commencement of oral submissions in this matter. The preliminary point was concerned with the propriety of filing the record of proceedings required in terms of r 62(5) of the High Court rules, 2021 (the rules), on the eve of the hearing of this matter. More
