Law Portal
Zimbabwe

Welcome To Law Portal

Welcome, Guest!
[Help?]

Pleadings re: Heads of Argument, Written Arguments and Oral Submissions

Appealed
HH46-09 : MATTHEW MBUNDIRE vs TYRONE SIM BUTTRESS
Ruled By: CHATUKUTA J

At the conclusion of the trial, I directed that the parties file closing submissions by close of business on 31 October 2008. The plaintiff filed his submissions timeously. Despite numerous reminders to the defendant's counsel, the defendant did not file his submissions. I have therefore proceeded to prepare my judgment ...
More

HH88-12 : BLUMO TRADING (PRIVATE) LIMITED t/a COLCOM COMMODITIES vs MORGAN MUDUVURI
Ruled By: MATHONSI J

The respondent was served with the applicant's heads of argument on 23 May 2011. In terms of Rule 238(2a) of the High Court Rules, as the respondent is represented by a legal practitioner, the said legal practitioner was required to file heads of argument not more than ten days after ...
More

HH32-12 : ZELLCO CELLULLAR PL vs NETONE CELLULLAR PL and DR CALLISTUS NDLOVU and REWARD KANGAI and LYNDON NKOMO
Ruled By: GOWORA J

Subsequent to hearing this matter, after having researched on the subject, I requested the parties to address supplementary heads of argument for the benefit of the court.The respondents were kind enough to oblige and I am indebted to Miss Moyo for having taken the time to prepare and file the ...
More

HH04-10 : MYDALE INTERNATIONAL MARKETING (PVT) LTD vs DR ROB KELLY and HAMMER AND TONGUES (PVT) LTD
Ruled By: GOWORA J

The applicant also avers that the appeal is null and void for want of validity as the judgment is interlocutory. The applicant cited no authority for this proposition.
More

HH99-10 : CRAIG ROBINSON vs ROBERT ROOT PROPERTY CONSULTANTS and HAMMER AND TONGUES (PVT) LTD
Ruled By: MAKARAU JP

In March 2009, the applicant approached this court on a certificate of urgency and obtained a provisional order calling upon the respondents to show cause why they should not be ordered to release certain items of household goods and effects whose details were listed in an annexure to the application.As ...
More

HH40-13 : TREVOR SIMBANEGAVI vs OFFICER JACHI
Ruled By: MAKONI J

On 8 December 2010, at around 1700 hours, and in Avonlea Drive, the plaintiff was approached by the defendant who was in the company of other officers of the Criminal Investigation Department. The defendant ordered the plaintiff to disembark from the motor vehicle where he was sitting. He ordered the ...
More

HH227-15 : ZIMBABWE TOBACCO GROWING COMPANY (PVT) LTD t/a NORTHERN TOBACCO vs GEORGE MANIWA
Ruled By: CHITAKUNYE J

In Cargill Zimbabwe v Culvenham Trading (Pvt) Ltd 2006 (1) ZLR 381 (H)…, MAKARAU J…, had this to say….,;“…,. In my view, a dispute between the parties can only arise ex facie the pleadings filed with the court. It cannot be assumed or presumed from the mere fact of the ...
More

SSC67-20 : PROSECUTOR GENERAL OF ZIMBABWE vs INTRATEK ZIMBABWE PL and WICKNELL CHIVAYO and L NCUBE
Ruled By: GWAUNZA DCJ, MAKARAU JA and MAVANGIRA JA

This is an appeal against the whole judgment of the High Court handed down on 20 March 2019, quashing the charges that the first and second respondents were facing in an ongoing criminal trial before the third respondent and acquitting them on all the charges.Background FactsThe facts giving rise to ...
More

HH17-10 : TOMU NYANDORO vs ESTATE LATE PAULINO OLIVERIA MARTINS represented by the Executor and THE MASTER OF THE HIGH COURT and CHRISTOPHER MARTINS
Ruled By: CHITAKUNYE J

The applicant's heads of argument were filed on 3 June 2009 and served on the respondents legal practitioners on that same date.In terms of Rule 238 of the High Court Rules, the respondents were required to file their heads of arguments not more than ten days after being served with ...
More

HH91-10 : REVEREND R. J. SIBANDA and APOSTOLIC FAITH CHURCH vs MAGISTRATE RODNEY MZYECE N. O. and NCN MATIZA and K. BOSHA and O. GUMBO and THREE OTHERS
Ruled By: KARWI J

The applicants filed their application for review on 18 August 2006 - some two months out of time. The applicants are also seeking condonation of their late application for review. They are also seeking condonation of their delay in filing Heads of Argument in this matter.The application is strongly opposed ...
More

HH07-13 : ZIMBABWE TEXTILE MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION vs ZIMBABWE TEXTILE WORKERS UNION and DR. GODFREY KANYENZE
Ruled By: MTSHIYA J

Counsel for the applicant noted that the applicant's heads of argument were filed on 17 April 2012. He said in terms of the High Court Rules 1971 the respondents' heads of argument were only filed on 26 June 2012. He said in terms of the Rules the heads of argument ...
More

HH126-13 : AMER KHAN vs INNOCENT MUCHENJE and CHARM MUCHENJE
Ruled By: MAKONI J

At the hearing of the matter, counsel for the respondents took issue, in limine, with the manner the applicant handled the issue of his heads of argument. Counsel for the respondents submitted that the applicant's heads of argument were filed on 20 September 2011 and were only served on 29 ...
More

HH153-11 : MICHAEL TAREMBA (in his capacity as Executor in the Estate of the late Joseph Patrick Taremba) vs NYADA PHIRI
Ruled By: CHITAKUNYE J

On 13 September 2010, the applicant filed his answering affidavit. On 18 October 2010, the applicant's heads of argument were duly filed with court and served on the respondent on 19 October 2010. Thereafter, the respondent was expected to file his heads of argument in terms of the Rules. In ...
More

HB82-13 : ELLINGBARN TRADING (PRIVATE) LIMITED vs ASSISTANT MASTER OF THE HIGH COURT and PEOPLE'S OWN SAVINGS BANK
Ruled By: MUTEMA J

At the hearing, the second respondent's counsel took the point in limine that the applicant was automatically barred on account of not having filed its heads of argument within the stipulated ten day period. See Order 32 Rule 238(2a) as read with Rule 238(2b) of the High Court Rules, 1971.The ...
More

HB97-11 : NOREEN SIBANDA and BENSON SIYAWAREVA vs JULIUS MPOSELWA NDLOVU
Ruled By: MATHONSI J

Before dealing with the issue of the applicant's default, I propose to touch on the failure by the respondent's legal practitioners to file heads of argument timeously.The applicants' heads of arguments were filed on 3 May 2011 and served on their opponents on 5 May 2011, as appears from the ...
More

HH32-14 : ZIMPLASTICS (PVT) LTD vs ROLLY CORBET
Ruled By: CHIGUMBA J

On 4 September 2013, under case number HC6406/13, the applicant obtained an order of this court, that case numbers HC11294/11 and HC4709/13 be consolidated and heard as one matter.The respondent had filed an application for summary judgment under case number HC11294/11 to which the applicant had filed opposing papers. The ...
More

HH285-14 : M vs M
Ruled By: CHITAKUNYE J

On the date of the hearing, a point in limine, to the effect that the respondent was barred for not filing heads of arguments in time, was raised by the applicant's counsel after which I granted the application and indicated that my written reasons will follow.These are the reasons.The applicant ...
More

HH480-15 : SENELANE NDLOVU vs CHAPMAN ANOPA MUFUDZI MARUFU
Ruled By: MWAYERA J

Upon hearing the opposed application, the plaintiff sought for the upliftment of bar to file heads of arguments which were not timeously filed. The defendant opposed the application.It emerged in that preliminary hearing that the plaintiff inadvently omitted to file heads for the present case. It was agreed by both ...
More

HHH32-15 : PREDOM INVESTMENTS (PVT) LIMITED and CHARLES KATEWERA and PARTSON JUNGWE vs THE STATE
Ruled By: BHUNU J and TAGU J

At the hearing of the appeal, counsel for the appellants applied that the respondent be barred from making submissions on the basis that the respondent had failed to file his heads of argument timeously.The respondent's heads were filed out of time and not in compliance with the Rules of this ...
More

SC68-17 : JUDICIAL SERVICE COMMISSION vs ROMEO TAOMBERA ZIBANI and OTHERS
Ruled By: HLATSHWAYO JA, PATEL JA and ZIYAMBI AJA

The first respondent has declined to file his heads of argument in the matter….,.Following his failure to do so timeously, he was clearly barred in these proceedings and remained barred until such time as he sought, and obtained, the upliftment of that bar.Undaunted by the obvious absence of any right ...
More

HH107-15 : FRANCIS KATSANDE vs JONATHAN SAMUKANGE and WELT HUINGER HILFE and THE SHERIFF OF ZIMBABWE
Ruled By: MAKONI J

At the hearing of the matter, Mr Katsande, in limine, submitted that the respondents were barred in terms of Rule 238(2b) for failure to file heads of arguments.In response, Mr Samukange submitted that he was a self-actor and is not obliged to file heads of argument. Mr Katsande conceded the ...
More

Appealed
SC04-19 : LESLEY FAYE MARSH (PVT) LTD T/A PREMIER DIAMONDS and OTHERS vs AFRICAN BANKING CORPORATION OF ZIMBABWE (PVT) LTD and ABC HOLDINGS (PVT) LTD
Ruled By: GWAUNZA DCJ, MAKARAU JA and MAKONI JA

This is an appeal against the whole judgment of the High Court handed down on 31 March 2015, in which the court a quo dismissed the appellants' application for rescission of judgment for want of prosecution.The FactsThe respondents issued summons against the appellants out of the High Court, claiming the ...
More

View Appeal
HH425-16 : AFRICAN BANKING CORPORATION OF ZIMBABWE and ABC HOLDINGS LTD vs LESLEY FAYE MARSH (PVT) LTD T/A PREMIER DIAMONDS and OTHERS
Ruled By: CHATUKUTA J

After hearing counsel, I granted an order in favour of the applicants herein. I am advised that an appeal against my decision has since been noted and a request for reasons for the judgment has been communicated to the Registrar. These are my reasons.This is an application for the dismissal ...
More

View Appeal
HH214-15 : NETONE CELLULAR (PVT) LTD vs BACNET TRADING (PVT) LTD and MINISTER OF LOCAL GOVERNMEMT, PUBLIC WORKS & NATIONAL HOUSING and REGISTRAR OF DEEDS
Ruled By: MAFUSIRE J

Counsel for the second respondent applied for condonation or the upliftment of the automatic bar operating against the second respondent for having filed the heads of argument some months out of time.A formal court application to this effect had been filed on 15 August 2014. But it seems no further ...
More

SC67-19 : DANIEL CHINTENGO vs TREDCOR ZIMBABWE (PRIVATE) LIMITED t/a TRENTYRE ZIMBABWE
Ruled By: MALABA CJ, GUVAVA JA and BERE JA

The requirement for a litigant who is represented to file heads of argument is captured in Rule 26(1) of the Labour Court Rules, 2006 which states as follows:“(1) Where an applicant or appellant is to be represented by a legal practitioner or representative at the hearing of the application, appeal ...
More

HH440-19 : INTRATREK ZIMBABWE (PVT) LTD vs ZIMBABWE POWER COMPANY (PVT) LTD
Ruled By: CHITAPI J

In the judgment HH91-19, in the case Blessing Mureyani v Maggie Gentie and Minister of Local Government and National Housing, I bemoaned the increased workload which judges of this court have to deal with and the immense pressure which is exerted on judges to cope with litigants and public expectations ...
More

HH440-19 : INTRATREK ZIMBABWE (PVT) LTD vs ZIMBABWE POWER COMPANY (PVT) LTD
Ruled By: CHITAPI J

Before I endorse my order, I wish to place on record that both counsel assisted the court immensely in their well-researched heads of arguments.Although my judgment does not cite all of the cases cited in the heads of argument their number showed that great effort was put in preparing the ...
More

HHH117-14 : LEE-WAVERLY JOHN vs THE STATE and RODGERS KACHAMBWA
Ruled By: MATANDA-MOYO J

The applicant, at the onset of the proceedings, raised two preliminary points.Firstly, he submitted that there was no opposition by the respondents before me.The respondents filed a notice of opposition on 23 July 2013. An opposing affidavit by Rodgers Kachambwa was filed together with the Notice of Opposition.I shall quote ...
More

HHH145-13 : AFRICAN CONSOLIDATED RESOURCES (PRIVATE) LIMITED vs THE STATE
Ruled By: MUSAKWA J WITH ASSESSORS

Having been indicted on a charge of fraud, or, alternatively, contravening the Precious Stones Trade Act [Chapter 21:06] the accused applied to quash the charges on the basis that they do not disclose an offence.Having heard arguments from respective counsels I subsequently directed they file relevant authorities in support of ...
More

HHH185-18 : GARIKAYI MBERIKWAZVO vs RESIDENT MAGISTRATE (KADOMA) N.O. and THE PROSECUTOR GENERAL N.O.
Ruled By: MUSAKWA J

Counsel for the second respondent submitted that the application should have been referred to this court by the lower court. Unfortunately he cited no provision that enjoins a lower court to adopt such a procedure.
More

HH442-15 : DAVID WHITEHEAD TEXTILES LTD (represented by KNOWLEDGE HOFISI, in his capacity as Final Judicial Manager) vs JYOTSANAGEN KALA and LISTON CHAKUPA and MASTER OF THE HIGH COURT
Ruled By: MAFUSIRE J

In this application, one Knowledge Hofisi (“Hofisi”) was the final judicial manager of the applicant company, David Whitehead Textiles Limited, which was under final judicial management. The application was for an order that the applicant be joined as the second defendant in an action under the case reference number HC8549/13.In ...
More

HH776-15 : LADRAX INVESTMENTS (PVT) LTD vs IGNATIOUS CHIRENJE and RUTENDO WILLA CHIRENJE
Ruled By: MATANDA-MOYO J

This is an application for leave to execute pending appeal.This court, on 5 May 2015, granted judgment in favour of the applicant in the following;(1) That the respondents, having been barred for failure to file heads of argument, the notice of opposition is accordingly struck off.(2) Respondents' application for upliftment ...
More

HH593-15 : JESSIE CHINZOU vs OLIVER MASOMERA [as Executor Dative in the Estate late Fred Garikayi Muchenje] and THE MASTER OF THE HIGH COURT N.O. and CITY OF HARARE N.O.
Ruled By: CHITAKUNYE J

I must, at the outset, express my disquiet at the applicant's affidavits.An affidavit is supposed to be a sworn statement of facts deposed to by a deponent on facts that are within the knowledge or belief of the deponent.In this case, both the founding affidavit and the answering affidavit read ...
More

View Appeal
HH351-20 : THE SHERIFF OF ZIMBABWE and GURTA AG vs ANDERSON MANJA and 98 OTHERS
Ruled By: CHIKOWERO J

Evidence can only be controverted by other evidence, not through heads of argument or oral submissions - the sole purpose of which is to endeavour to punch holes into a case which is already prima facie established.
More

Appealed
HH137-19 : STANLEY NHARI vs ROBERT MUGABE and DR GRACE MUGABE and GUSHUNGO DAIRY HOLDINGS (PVT) LTD
Ruled By: CHIKOWERO J

The plaintiff's submissions, although not finding favour with me, were invaluable in enabling me to dispose of the special plea.
More

HH63-16 : ASWEL NYANZARA vs MBADA DIAMONDS (PRIVATE) LIMITED
Ruled By: CHITAPI J

Since the applicant's claim was essentially a claim for payment of terminal benefits arising from a terminated contract of employment, I asked the applicant's legal practitioner…, to address me on her understanding and interpretation of section 13 of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01].
More

Appealed
SC14-21 : MAXWELL SIBANDA vs ZAMBE NYIKA GWASIRA and NZ INDUSTRIAL and MINING SUPPLIES and REGISTRAR OF DEEDS and SHERIFF OF ZIMBABWE
Ruled By: GOWORA JA, GUVAVA JA and BHUNU JA

The appellant appeared in person.Prior to the matter being set down for hearing the appellant had the benefit of legal representation. Those representing him at the time had filed extensive heads of argument on his behalf.He submitted that he would abide by these heads of argument.
More

SSC17-21 : MARRY MUBAIWA CHIWENGA vs THE NATIONAL PROSECUTING AUTHORITY and THE CLERK OF COURT ROTTEN ROW MAGISTRATE'S COURT
Ruled By: UCHENA JA

This is an appeal against the judgment of the High Court dismissing the appellant's application for variation of bail conditions....,.In view of the lockdown due to Covid 19, I did not call the parties to appear before me to make oral submissions. I however invited their counsels to file Heads ...
More

SC78-21 : ZIMBABWE HOMELESS PEOPLES FEDERATION and OTHERS vs MINISTER OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND NATIONAL HOUSING and OTHERS
Ruled By: GARWE JA, MAVANGIRA JA and MATHONSI JA

After hearing argument from the parties, the High Court of Zimbabwe made an order dismissing the application filed by the appellants in terms of section 85(1) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe. The court also ordered the appellants to pay the costs of the application.This followed a finding by the court ...
More

View Appeal
HMA28-20 : TRIANGLE LIMITED and HIPPO VALLEY ESTATES vs ZIMBABWE REVENUE AUTHORITY and OTHERS
Ruled By: ZISENGWE J

The parties in this application are embroiled in a bitter dispute over the implications of their failure to specifically include Value Added Tax (abbreviated herein as “VAT”) matters in agreements for the milling of sugarcane.The applicants are both companies duly incorporated in terms of the laws of Zimbabwe whose names ...
More

HH309-15 : IRENE ZINDI vs ZIMBABWE FARMERS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LIMITED
Ruled By: MWAYERA J

The respondent obtained default judgment against the applicant on 21 July 2011. The default judgment was pursuant to a claim for $77,546=56 from a contract of purchase and sale concluded by the parties.The applicant approached the court for rescission of judgment in terms of Rule 449 of the High Court ...
More

HH94-16 : THE MILTON GARDENS ASSOCIATION and SYRIL MUPANGURI vs TECLA MVEMBE and CHAMPION CONSTRUCTORS (PVT) LTD and REGISTRAR OF DEEDS, HARARE and THE SURVEYOR GENERAL
Ruled By: DUBE J

I must make observations concerning the heads of argument filed on behalf of the applicants in this matter.These stretch up to 127 pages.Heads of argument are meant to be simply that. The purpose of heads of argument is to set out, briefly, the main heads of argument and are by ...
More

HHH374-19 : MUNYARADZI KEREKE vs FRANCIS MARAMWIDZE N.O.
Ruled By: HUNGWE J and WAMAMBO J

The appellant was convicted of rape, as defined in section 65 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23], by the Regional Magistrate, Harare, and sentenced to 14 years imprisonment of which four years were suspended for five years on the usual conditions, on 11 July 2016.The appellant ...
More

HH425-18 : MIDLANDS STATE UNIVERSITY vs GALAXY ENGINEERING DESIGN CONSULTANTS (PVT) LTD
Ruled By: CHIKOWERO J

After hearing argument by counsel, I granted an order in terms of the draft order attached to the application.These are my reasons. I undertook to furnish them.This is an application for amendment of the plea filed in the main matter, HC6655/15. That matter had actually been enrolled on the continuous ...
More

HH391-17 : ANDREW PASCOE vs MINISTRY OF LANDS & RURAL RESETTLEMENT and W. BUNGU and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL N.O.
Ruled By: FOROMA J

Order 32 Rule 232 of the High Court Rules, dealing with the time for opposition to a court application, provides as follows:“232 The time within which a respondent in a court application may be required to file a notice of opposition and opposing affidavit shall be not less than ten ...
More

HH801-22 : EQUITY PROPERTIES (PVT) LTD vs AL SHAMS GLOBAL BVI LIMITED and REGISTRAR OF DEEDS N.O.
Ruled By: MANGOTA J

I set HC6264/21 down for hearing. The hearing was scheduled for 20 June 2022. At the hearing, the applicant, which was the respondent in the case, raised a preliminary point. It did so through counsel.Its in limine matter was that the first respondent (“the respondent”) which was the applicant in ...
More

HB134-15 : STANLEY NANZOMBE vs SICINGILE MASUKU (NEE MOYO) and THE SHERIFF OF ZIMBABWE and THE REGISTRAR OF DEEDS
Ruled By: MAKONESE J

The applicant purchased the immovable property known as Stand 4022 Khumalo Township of Stand 4125 Bulawayo (commonly referred to as 36 Ellington Avenue, Khumalo, Bulawayo) at a public auction conducted by the second respondent on 19 July 2013.The property is registered in the name of Raphael Masuku (the first respondent's ...
More

View Appeal
HMA06-19 : WILLMORE MAKUMIRE vs MINISTER OF PUBLIC SERVICE, LABOUR & SOCIAL WELFARE and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ZIMBABWE
Ruled By: MAFUSIRE J

This judgment is given in default of appearance by the respondents. I am much concerned by the conduct of the officials from the office of the Attorney General, the second respondent herein.This was an opposed application.The respondents, through the Attorney-General, filed a notice of opposition. The record indicates, that, the ...
More

Back Main menu

Categories