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$220,000. This is the extant dispute between the parties More
At the onset of oral argument in this Court, the both parties raised points in limine. Appellant’s points mainly attack the validity of the Response filed on behalf of respondent whilst respondent’s points attack the validity of the appeal. The Court is sitting as a result of the appeal filed by appellant. If the appeal is invalid as argued by respondent then all the other points fall away. This is because the Court’s jurisdiction is triggered by the filing of a valid appeal. As a result the Court will consider respondent’s points first. More
In this action matter, the plaintiffs (the Kudyas) seek transfer of property known as Stand 2994 Prospect Township of Stand 322 of Prospect measuring 4026 square metres purchased in 2004 from the first defendant, Agson Afuta Chioza in 2004. The evidence, on behalf of the plaintiffs, was given by his wife Abigail Kudya. This was under a power of attorney given by her husband Tamuona Luxton Kudya. She is also the second plaintiff. More
This is an application for the placement of a caveat on a property known as Lot 115 of Lot 26 Lewisam of Lot E Colne Valley Reitfontein (‘the property’). It is common cause that sometime in 2022 the applicant and the first respondent entered into an agreement for the construction of two cluster blocks at the property. A dispute has arisen about the payments allegedly due to the applicant. In consequence thereof, the applicant as plaintiff has in HCH 2797/24 sued out summons against the respondent claiming payments of USD$ 23 461.96 being the total fees for manual labour; USD$6... More
: This is an urgent chamber application for interdictory relief. The terms of the provisional order sought are as follows:
“TERMS OF FINAL ORDER SOUGHT
That you show cause to the Honourable Court why a final order should not be made in the following terms: -
The application be and is hereby granted.
The provisional order issued by this court on ........be and is hereby confirmed.
The offer letters authored by the 3rd and 4th respondents in the first and second respondents’ favour in respect of stands 41625 and 41626 Mount Pleasant be and are hereby set aside.
The agreement... More
This matter concerns a claim for unpaid legal fees by the plaintiff, a prominent law firm, represented by Mrs. Beatrice Mtetwa. The defendant, Ms. Marian Chombo, engaged the plaintiff to represent her during acrimonious divorce proceedings that spanned several years. Despite receiving extensive legal services, the defendant failed to settle the agreed legal fees, leading to this action. More
The accused were charged with the crime of fraud as defined in S 136(a) and ((b) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23] (the Criminal Law Code). The charge reads:
“On a date to the Prosecution unknown but during the period extending from 1 October 2022 to 28 February 2023 and at CMED (Pvt) Ltd Head Office Corner Herbert Chitepo/Rekayi Tangwena, Belvedere, Harare, the accused persons Hugh Tinashe Sibanda and Centenary Tobacco (Private) Limited a body corporate established in terms of the laws of Zimbabwe or one or both of them unlawfully made a misrepresentation to CMED... More
