Law Portal
Zimbabwe

Welcome To Law Portal

Welcome, Guest!
[Help?]

Final Orders re: Judgment in Personam iro Parties Bound by a Court Order

HH79-12 : MARIANE SABETA vs COMMISSIONER GENERAL ZIMBABWE REVENUE AUTHORITY
Ruled By: MATHONSI J

This is an application for an order compelling the respondent to assess capital gains tax payable in respect of the sale of Stand 965 Mabelreign Township, Harare and to receive such tax from the Deputy Sheriff for Harare on the pain of costs of the application.The said property is currently ...
More

HH34-09 : JOHN CAMERON ASHER vs MINISTER OF STATE RESPONSIBLE FOR NATIONALL SECURITY, LANDS, LAND REFORM AND RESETTLEMENT IN THE PRESIDENT'S OFFICE AND T. NYIKADZINO
Ruled By: CHATUKUTA J

I, however, believe that as the Zimbabwe Republic Police is not before me, it is not proper to order their involvement in the eviction of the second respondent.
More

HH86-09 : CHAWASARIRA TRANSPORT (PVT) LTD vs THE RESERVE BANK OF ZIMBABWE
Ruled By: BHUNU J

The respondent, that is to say the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe is a body corporate established in terms of the Reserve Bank Act [Chapter 22:15]. Its function, among others, include acting as the Exchange Control Authority in terms of the Exchange Control Act [Chapter 22:05] as read with the Exchange ...
More

Appealed
HH55-12 : STREAMSLEIGH INVESTMENTS (PRIVATE) LIMITED vs AUTOBAND INVESTMENTS (PRIVATE) LIMITED
Ruled By: BERE J

The third argument which was also raised by the applicant's counsel was that the application brought by the respondent in the lower court did not cite the applicant as a party to the proceedings and therefore the intended eviction might be targeted at the wrong and innocent party.I have extreme difficulties in following this argument ...
More

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

On 13 April 2011, under Case No. HC3507/11, PATEL J granted a provisional order in the following terms;“INTERIM RELIEF GRANTEDPending the determination of this matter, the applicant is granted the following interim relief;1. The decision of the Respondent to cancel the Service Provider Agreement be and is hereby declared unlawful ...
More

HH47-08 : TSITSI MUZENDA vs PATRICK KOMBAYI and ZIMBABWE ELECTORAL COMMISSION
Ruled By: KUDYA J

At the management meeting held on 21 May 2005, four preliminary issues were referred to trial. These were; (i) Whether or not the petition was served on time;(ii) Whether there was proper service on the second respondent;(iii) Whether security for costs was provided; and(iv) Whether or not the second respondent ...
More

HH45-08 : HILLARY SIMBARASHE vs ZIMBABWE ELECTORAL COMMISSION and MABEL CHINOMONA
Ruled By: KUDYA J

At the management meeting that was held on 21 May 2008, three preliminary issues were referred to trial. They were framed as follows:1. Whether the petition is out of time, and, if so, whether this is fatal to the petition.2. Whether the failure to file security for costs timeously renders ...
More

HH131-09 : MAIROS LISIMBA vs LIZZY CHIPENDO
Ruled By: CHITAKUNYE J

On 16 March 2007, and at Harare, the applicant entered into a sale agreement with Gatsikanayi Enock Nyamupanda (herein after referred to as Nyamupanda) for the purchase of a certain piece of land being Stand Number 9642 A Salisbury Township also known as Number 2 Umuguza Close, Wilmington Park, Cranborne, Harare, held under Deed of Transfer ...
More

HH164-09 : ZIMRE PROPERTY INVESTMENT (PVT) LTD vs CITY CALVARY CHURCH
Ruled By: GOWORA J

I cannot, however, order the arrest of any party barring the applicant from effecting the renovations. In the amended order now being sought by the applicant, it is required that any person, or persons, inhibiting the applicant from effecting the renovations as ordered in this matter be arrested. An arrest for failure to comply with a court order ...
More

Appealed
SC08-14 : SIMBA MUKAMBIRWA and OTHERS vs THE GOSPEL OF GOD CHURCH INTERNATIONAL 1932
Ruled By: GARWE JA, GOWORA JA and OMERJEE AJA

The respondent in this case, the Gospel of God Church International 1932 (hereinafter referred to as “the Church”) was founded by one Johane Marange in 1932.Since it was founded, the Church has spread to a large portion of the continent. Its headquarters are located in Zimbabwe. The founder is buried ...
More

SC55-13 : FREDRICK CHARLES MUTANDA vs THE STATE and KUDAKWASHE JARABINI
Ruled By: MALABA DCJ, GARWE JA and GOWORA JA

This is an appeal against the judgment of the High Court by which an application for review against the decision of the Magistrate's Court was dismissed and an order made that the judgment be referred to the Attorney General, Judicial Service Commission (JSC) and the Secretary of the Law Society of Zimbabwe. At the hearing ...
More

HH30-13 : BRIAN MUNEKA and DADIRAI RWANZA and JANIES TIMOTHY and EDMOND MULEYA and MUSEKIWA MUZANENHAMO and TSITSI DHLIWAYO vs MANICA BUS COMPANY
Ruled By: MTSHIYA J

Furthermore, before writing this judgment, the parties confirmed to me that the second, fourth, fifth and sixth applicants had since settled the matter with the respondent. That means the respondent still has to comply with the award in respect of the first and third applicants only. As already indicated, the third applicant is not properly ...
More

HH354-13 : STANBIC NOMINEES PRIVATE LIMITED and STANBIC BANK ZIMBABWE LIMITED vs REMO INVESTMENT BROKERS (PRIVATE) LIMITED
Ruled By: MTSHIYA J

In Dynamos Football Club (Pvt) Ltd and Anor v ZIFA Ors 2006 (1) ZLR 346 (S) it was stated:- “….,. It is trite that an order requiring the performance of acts which may be prejudicial to the interests of a person should not be made by a court of law when he is ...
More

HB39-13 : KARREN DUBE vs LUPANE STATE UNIVERSITY and MCLEAN BHALA
Ruled By: CHEDA AJ

The Acting Deans concerned were not cited in these papers, and it would therefore not be proper to make an order that adversely affects them when they have not been cited.
More

HH25-14 : STEVEN VHAVHA vs MSIZI DUBE and THE DIRECTOR OF HOUSING, CHITUNGWIZA and MUNICIPALITY OF CHITUNGWIZA and NANCY KUTYAURIPO
Ruled By: CHITAKUNYE J

As regards whether the order in HC6685/08 affected the plaintiff's rights and interests in Stand 8237 Unit K, Chitungwiza - that goes without saying. His rights and interests were ceded to the first defendant without his consent or even knowledge. I am of the view that the plaintiff is entitled to have his rights and ...
More

HH186-14 : AFRICAN BANKING CORPORATION OF ZIMBABWE LIMITED vs DYNAMIC SUCCESS (PVT) LTD and DORCAS MARY MUDENDA
Ruled By: MTSHIYA J

In this application, the applicant seeks the following relief:- “IT IS ORDERED THAT:- 1. It is ordered that Respondent pays the sum of US$154,922=07 plus interest on this sum at the rate of 50% per annum from 1st January 2012 to the date of payment in full; 2. Respondent pays the costs incurred in Case No.137/12 as ordered by the ...
More

HH56-15 : ESTATE LATE FIDELIS CHIWEDZA and OSBURGA NDHLOVU (Executrix Dative) vs LUISA GOMBARUME and POLKA EXECUTOR SERVICES and AFRICA REAL ESTATE and MAKUNIKE & PARTNERS and OTHERS
Ruled By: UCHENA J

A court cannot grant orders against a party who has not been cited and given an opportunity to defend himself.
More

Appealed
SC34-19 : NJZ RESOURCES (HK) LIMITED vs ANDREW ZINYEMBA AND 18 OTHERS
Ruled By: GWAUNZA DCJ, MAKARAU JA and BHUNU JA

In any case, the appellant's property cannot be declared executable in circumstances where it was not a party to the legal proceedings.
More

Appealed
SC43-19 : AFRASIA BANK ZIMBABWE LIMITED (IN LIQUDATION) vs THE RIGHT INVESTMENTS (PVT) LTD and OPIUM INVESTMENTS (PVT) LTD and PHILLIPA COUMBIS
Ruled By: GWAUNZA JA, GARWE JA and MAVANGIRA JA

Clearly, the appellant could not have properly moved for an amendment to its pleadings, nor to the relevant loan and security guarantees, without the joinder of Stir Crazy Investments (Pvt) Ltd to the proceedings a quo. There is no doubt that the company had substantial interest in the subject matter of the dispute and was therefore entitled ...
More

SC48-19 : JACOB BETHEL CORPORATION vs EMMANUEL CHIKUYA
Ruled By: MAKARAU JA, GOWORA JA and BERE JA

In making the order that it did in the circumstances of the matter, the court a quo had this to say: “The judgment by my sister CHIVIZHE J is not binding on me. My decision of 4 July 2014 is extant. It was not successfully appealed against. It is the basis for this quantification.”…,. An analysis of the ...
More

Appealed
SC28-18 : NYAKUTOMBWA MUGABE LEGAL COUNSEL vs GETRUDE MUTASA and DIDYMUS MUTASA and SHERIFF OF ZIMBABWE
Ruled By: GARWE JA, MAKARAU JA and GUVAVA JA

This is an appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Zimbabwe ordering the return of all the goods belonging to the first and second respondents attached pursuant to a default judgment granted earlier by the same court against the second respondent.The judgment appealed against also ordered that the ...
More

HB46-14 : TOPPERS UNIFORMS PL vs HYDE PARK INVESTMENTS PL and TOTALLY UNIFORMS PL and AHMED ESAT and NKANI KHOZA and ZULEKA ESAT
Ruled By: MUTEMA J

The first respondent owns a building formerly known as Toppers Building, situate at corner Fort Street and 13th Avenue, Bulawayo [the premises].The applicant leased the premises for several years carrying on the business of manufacturing and retailing school uniforms and other items of school wear. During that period, the applicant ...
More

SC40-15 : INDIUM INVESTMENTS (PVT) LTD vs KINGSHAVEN (PVT) LTD and DANIEL SHUMBA and LINDA SHUMBA
Ruled By: CHIDYAUSIKU CJ, GWAUNZA JA, GOWORA JA, HLATSHWAYO JA and MAVANGIRA AJA

In Hundah v Murauro 1993 (2) ZLR 401, the point was made, that, for a party who has a real interest in the matter in dispute before a court to be bound by a judgment of the court, such party should be cited. At p404E-G the court stated:“We have drawn ...
More

SC46-17 : ANDREW MAGARASADZA and 34 OTHERS vs FREDA REBECCA GOLD MINE HOLDINGS LTD t/a FREDA REBECCA GOLD MINE and ASSOCIATED MINE WORKERS UNION OF ZIMBABWE
Ruled By: MAVANGIRA JA

In chambers in terms of Rule 5 of the Rules of the Supreme Court, 1964.For the sake of completeness, the following observation is noted:Despite being served with all the relevant papers, the second respondent did not file any papers in response to this application. It was therefore barred. It also ...