Law Portal
Zimbabwe

Welcome To Law Portal

Welcome, Guest!
[Help?]

Subpoena Ad Testificandum or Witness Summons re: Competent or Compellable Witness, Claim of Privilege & Rule of Relevance

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

Appealed
SC27-08 : JOSHUA KADENGU and LAMECK KADENGU and ROSA KADENGU vs OLGA KADENGU and RICHARD CHIMBARI and MASTER OF THE HIGH COURT
Ruled By: SANDURA JA, ZIYAMBI JA and GARWE JA

The late Job Bruno Kadengu died testate on 25 March 1990. His Will contained the following clauses:“2. The expression 'Executors' or 'Executor' wherever used in this Will mean either Executors or Administrators or Trustees or any two or all of these offices as may be appropriate in the circumstances and ...
More

HH99-12 : SHUNGU ENGINEERING (PVT) LTD vs SIMBARASHE SANGONDIMAMBO & ORS
Ruled By: MATHONSI J

This is an urgent application in which the applicant seeks a provisional order in the following terms:-“(A) TERMS OF FINAL ORDER SOUGHTThat you show cause to this Honourable Court why a final order should not be made in the following terms:1. That the execution of the Arbitral Award in case ...
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

In section 158 of the Electoral Act [Chapter 2:13] as read with section 171(4)(b), any person alleged to have committed an electoral malpractice may be called to vindicate his or her name before such a finding is made against him or her.
More

HH111-09 : ELLEN SIMON vs FUNDA SAIMON
Ruled By: KUDYA J

Exhibit 1A is a pro forma of an affidavit that is sold at Kingstons Booksellers and Stationers. It was common cause that the name of the deponent and her national identity number and address were handwritten by Eneresi Simon. Eneresi stated that she was the one who wrote out the plaintiff's name, national identity card, address and ...
More

HH113-09 : DIDYMUS MUTASA vs NGONI NDUNA N.O. and ATTORNEY-GENERAL and COMMISSIONER-GENERAL OF POLICE and ROBERT MCKERSIE
Ruled By: PATEL J

The applicant herein is the Minister of State responsible for Presidential Affairs. He was formerly the Minister responsible for Land Reform and Resettlement. The applicant originally sought an order, inter alia, staying and eventually setting aside the execution of a warrant of arrest issued against him on the 6th of ...
More

Appealed
HB59-09 : DINESH MANILAL NARAN vs RONNAH MAFURIRANO and THE REGISTRAR OF DEEDS
Ruled By: KAMOCHA J

The plaintiff in this matter seeks:-“1. An order to declare that the sale agreement executed between him and first defendant on the 30th of September 2001 on Stand 378, Gorebridge Road, Killarney, Bulawayo is still binding and effectual as between the parties;2. An order to compel the first defendant to ...
More

HH24-10 : SAHAWI INTERNATIONAL (PTY) LIMITED and YAKUB IBRAHIM MAHOMED vs JOHN ARNOLD BREDENKAMP and BRECO INTERNATIONAL (PRIVATE) LIMITED
Ruled By: MAKARAU JP

Mero motu, I directed that the objection be served upon the Law Society with an invitation that the Law Society appear at the hearing of the matter....,. The Law Society..., filed a document in which it laid out its position in the matter.
More

HH35-10 : RUTH MUSONZA (nee MTANAUKWA) vs ESHMAEL MUSONZA
Ruled By: GUVAVA J

The defendant produced, as exhibit 15, a list of property which he stated belonged to Mildred Shata, his sister, Viola Edith Musonza, and Yolanda Madondo.The defendant's explanation that he and the plaintiff had used the bed left by his second wife, Mildred Shata, did not ring true. He separated from ...
More

HH45-10 : CHRISTMAS MUSONI vs NABOTH JOKONOKO and SHURUGWI TOWN COUNCIL
Ruled By: CHITAKUNYE J

The plaintiff sued the two defendants claiming basically for his restoration as the registered buyer of House Number 360 Makusha Township, Shurugwi.In his summons and declaration, the plaintiff alleged, that, on 20 August 1981 he entered into a written agreement of sale with Dickson Katerere (“D. Katerere”) in respect of ...
More

HH49-10 : HENRY NYOKA vs JENNIFER MUREZA
Ruled By: MAVANGIRA J

The plaintiff issued summons for the ejectment of the defendant from House No.14 Msasa Park Drive, Msasa Park, Harare. The basis of the plaintiff's claim is that he is the sole owner of the immovable property.He avers that upon the termination of an unregistered union between him and the defendant, ...
More

HH50-10 : TAZVITYA ARTHAR MUTANDWA vs SILVER ZHUWAKE and BRENDA CAROL LEEPER and THE DEPUTY SHERIFF and THE REGISTRAR OF DEEDS and ISRAEL GUMUNYU
Ruled By: BUNHU J

During the course of the trial the plaintiff sought to call the second defendant as a witness. Both counsel for the first and fifth defendants have vigorously objected to the calling of this witness on the grounds that she is already barred, and, as such, cannot be heard in terms of Rule 83. Counsel for the ...
More

HH115-10 : NASSAH MUKOMBERANWA vs VIVIAN MOKOMBERANWA
Ruled By: MUSAKWA J

Although the defendant claimed that the Norton stand belongs to her brother, the probabilities that she used her brother as a front are very high. In the first place, the brother unaccountably failed to attend court to testify as the defendant's witness on the issue....,.
More

HH121-10 : POWER COACH EXPRESS (PVT) LIMITED vs MARTIN MILLERS AND ENGINEERS
Ruled By: BERE J

Firstly, the status of Mr. Muzondiwa from Total Zimbabwe in this whole transaction was put in issue by the plaintiff who specifically told the court that he did not know Mr. Muzondiwa, and that he was a total stranger to the contractual agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant. The plaintiff was categoric that Mr. ...
More

HH145-10 : TENDAI MUCHENJE vs G. AND M. PANEL BEATERS t/a SUPREME PANEL BEATERS & SPRAY PAINTERS
Ruled By: CHITAKUNYE J

Apart from producing the Automobile Association of Zimbabwe report the defendant could have called witnesses from the Automobile Association of Zimbabwe, or even the one who took the motor vehicle to the Automobile Association of Zimbabwe - but this was not done.
More

HH202-10 : OBRIDGE ENTERPRISES (PVT) LTD vs PULWICK ENTERPRISES (PVT) LTD
Ruled By: KUDYA J

Neither did the defendant call the evidence of Tafadzwa to confirm the alleged central part played by him in regards to the 645 bags despite having been allowed the indulgence of a postponement, firstly to 30 July, and secondly to 6 September 2010, for the purpose.
More

HH206-10 : STANBIC BANK ZIMBABWE LIMITED vs FLAIR FURNITURE COMPANY (SUCCESSORS) LIMITED
Ruled By: MTSHIYA J

Counsel for the plaintiff also said Mr Neil James Bruce had not explained his failure to call his Finance Director who was involved in settling accounts. Mr Neil James Bruce was not involved...,.
More

HH227-10 : MIKE MAKOPE vs GEOFFREY DZUMBUNU and REGISTRAR OF DEEDS N.O. and MINISTER OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT
Ruled By: MAVANGIRA J

Felix Dzumbunu also said that he had not called Denrose Real Estate to testify because “to a certain extent the agent was surprisingly hostile” to him and he felt that they were conniving with the plaintiff.
More

HH277-10 : BENCHILL INVESTMENTS (PVT) LTD vs BATTERY WORLD (PVT) LTD
Ruled By: KUDYA J

Collin Chakupa was not called to dispute Godwin Dingwiza's testimony that both Godwin Dingwiza and Collin Chakupa regarded the piece of paper as a quotation.
More

HB10-10 : NORAH NCUBE vs ALBERT GUMBO and REGISTRAR OF DEEDS
Ruled By: KAMOCHA J

No affidavit from her employers was filed to support her story.
More

HH249-10 : PRINT AFRICA (PRIVATE) LIMITED and MOSES MPOFU vs OLD MUTUAL PROPERTY INVESTMENTS
Ruled By: GOWORA J

Without an affidavit from the receptionist on what she did with the Notice there is in fact no explanation. I can only therefore find that the default was wilful.
More

View Appeal
HH267-10 : THE TRUSTEES OF THE LEONARD CHESHIRE HOMES ZIMBABWE CENTRAL TRUST vs ROBERT CHIITE and TOGAREPI CHIMBARANGA and ARTMORE DEMBEZEKE and OTHERS
Ruled By: UCHENA J

Mr Choto also told the court that Mr Muzondo told him that he had been a trustee for three years when he was appointed a trustee. That evidence was not contradicted by the defendants. Mr Muzondo was not called to testify for the plaintiff.
More

HH06-11 : RITA SEKESAI CHIWANDAMIRA vs JOSEPHINE MUPANDAWANA
Ruled By: CHATUKUTA J

In any event, the clerk was not called as a witness and his evidence was placed before the court by counsel for the plaintiff from the bar.
More

HH09-13 : RUSITU AGENCIES (PRIVATE) LIMITED vs PETER FUNGAYI KANGARA
Ruled By: MAVANGIRA J

The defendant said that Kaunda later left employment and he was not sure of his current whereabouts….,. It would have made sense for the defendant to call his wife to corroborate his denial of ever having been rescued by Elijah Michael Chiwara and Vincent Bushu after having had a vehicle breakdown in Mhondoro and of his ...
More

HH52-11 : AMAPLAT MAURITIUS LTD and AMARI NICKEL HOLDINGS ZIMBABWE LTD vs ZIMBABWE MINING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION and THE CHIEF MINING COMMISSIONER and OTHERS
Ruled By: MUTEMA J

Even the perceived need to act, viz the alleged fear of the first respondent being in the process of transferring the applicants' interest in the third and fourth respondents to an unnamed 3rd party is mere speculation or conjecture. The applicants allege that their representatives “in Zimbabwe have been informed that first respondent is ...
More

HH79-11 : RUDO ELIZABETH SIMANGO (nee MAKONI) vs PAUL SIMANGO
Ruled By: CHITAKUNYE J

As stated by Dr. Nhiwatiwa in his report after examining Nathan Simango at my request - “Nathan is ill, he barely says a word at times, he smiles, and at times he laughs out loud. There also appears to be squabbles between Nathan's family and his wife. This is most unfortunate as it adds more pressure ...
More

HH112-11 : VALERIE MAKONI vs WILFORD MAKONI
Ruled By: CHITAKUNYE J

The defendant's evidence on the cattle was rather contradictory. In his plea, he demanded that all the cattle be awarded to him without stating any reason for such. It was only in the supplementary summary of evidence that it emerged that he was claiming that the cattle were paid to him as lobola by his sister's ...
More

HH280-14 : JAMERA PATSWAWAIRI TILTON vs GOODLUCKY SIMOKO and RM INSURANCE
Ruled By: MTSHIYA J

I also find it difficult to understand why the defendant failed to bring his mechanic, Mashati, to testify. Surely, that witness would have corroborated his evidence of seeing a Camry being driven dangerously as they left Harare; seeing a Camry overtaking them at the scene of the accident; and seeing the plaintiff, as the driver, ...
More

HB100-14 : LEMMAN MUNENEKWA vs ELIAS MUZAMBA and FANISILE NKOMO and PHILANI WEZA and NKOSILATHI NGWENYA and MINISTER OF LANDS & RURAL RESETTLEMENT
Ruled By: KAMOCHA J

Counsel for the plaintiff requested the court to call Mr Misheck Marandu. The court acceded to the request and called him as its witness so that counsel for both parties could have the opportunity to cross-examine him.
More

SC13-17 : ZIMBABWE UNITED PASSENGER COMPANY LIMITED vs PACKHORSE SERVICES (PRIVATE) LIMITED
Ruled By: GARWE JA, GOWORA JA and MAVANGIRA AJA

There is no explanation given as to why the respondent did not call Mr Henrikson, the Executive Board member of Scania South Africa (Pty) Limited, to clarify the context of his interactions with the appellant and with the Governor of the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe. Without such an explanation, the respondent cannot disprove the ...
More

HH93-11 : ELIZABETH KAMANGA vs ESTATE LATE BUTE CHIKONDO (represented by Oswald Bute Chikondo as executor) and MERCY CHIKONDO and CITY OF HARARE and MASTER OF THE HIGH COURT
Ruled By: GUVAVA J

The defendants also stated their mother's relatives had told them that the property in Mabvuku belonged to their parents. However, it is worthy to note that none of the relatives were called to testify to this effect.
More

SC47-18 : NETONE CELLULAR (PVT) LTD and REWARD KANGAI vs ECONET WIRELESS (PVT) LTD and ZIMBABWE REVENUE AUTHORITY
Ruled By: GOWORA JA, HLATSHWAYO JA and MAVANGIRA JA

Relating to the second appellant, the court held that he was a competent and compellable witness and could testify on the pertinent issues found in the subpoenaed documents….,. When the appeal hearing resumed, on 10 July 2017, at the commencement of the hearing, the court intimated to the parties that the second appellant was allegedly discharged from ...
More

HH485-13 : LOVENESS KUDZANGA vs GODFREY KUDZANGA and THE REGISTRAR OF DEEDS and DEPUTY SHERIFF HARARE
Ruled By: MAWADZE J

The people to whom the handwritten notes are addressed did not testify.
More

HH166-16 : ZUVA PETROLEUM LIMITED vs S CHIRENJE
Ruled By: MWAYERA J and MUNANGATI-MANONGWA J

Tying up to this, is the misdirection by the court a quo, once again as pointed to by the appellant, where the court made a finding that the appellant should have called the evidence of its Business Manager. Such evidence was totally unnecessary in view of the established and undisputed facts. It was common cause that the original lessee ...
More

HH150-15 : SHINGIRAI PHILIP KATSANDE vs ANGELINE KATSANDE (nee NYAHWEMA)
Ruled By: CHITAKUNYE J

As with evidence on other properties, the plaintiff had intimated that Zivanai Emmanuel Katsande would be called to testify on the purchase of Stand 373, Midlands Township 3 of Uplands sub-division of A of Waterfalls property - but he was never called. So it remained the plaintiff's story against the defendant and the seller's story.
More

HH161-15 : MCR VENGESAYI and AGNES VENGESAYI T/A VENGESAYI ARHITECTS vs BELVEDERE NURSING HOME (PRIVATE) LIMITED
Ruled By: DUBE J

The Board members who sat in these meetings were deliberately not called to give their side of the story….,. Dr Makonese, who appears to have taken over from Dr Zvandasara, seemed to also have continued with the project without protest. He was not called as a witness.
More

View Appeal
HH385-13 : WEBSTER RUSHESHA (guardian of Panashe and Tivonge Rushesha) and RASAR INV PL vs ALEXIOUS DERA and ZIMCOR TRUSTEES LTD and FRANK BUYANGA and BOKA INV PL and MATTHEW BOKA and ANOR
Ruled By: ZHOU J

The last witness called to testify for the plaintiffs was the first defendant, Alexious Mashingaidze Dera….,. Although he was cited as the first defendant he did not enter appearance to defend the matter. He only came as a witness at the instance of the plaintiffs after being subpoenaed to attend….,. The third defendant, who was the person ...
More

Appealed
SC21-19 : RONALD BAKARI vs TOTAL ZIMBABWE (PRIVATE) LIMITED
Ruled By: GARWE JA, GUVAVA JA and BHUNU JA

The appellant testified that he did not owe the respondent because he stood as surety for a company known as Limpopo Investments and not for SM Tyres (Pvt) Ltd. He testified that he did not know SM Tyres. He signed a surety agreement at the request of a friend, one Mr Wycliffe Chiunda (Chiunda), who, ...
More

View Appeal
HH222-16 : TOTAL ZIMBABWE (PVT) LTD vs RONALD BAKARI
Ruled By: DUBE J

The defendant submitted that he signed the surety agreement after he had been requested by Whitecliff Chiunda, a Total Marketing Executive, to do so. He was told by Mr Chiunda that he wanted to use the surety document to negotiate with his employers so that he could operate Nyamapanda Service Station. He signed the Deed of ...
More

HH66-12 : OTILIAH ZULU vs EZRA ZULU
Ruled By: MAWADZE J

It is not good enough for the applicant to shift the blame to Bruce Mujeyi's law firm and for Mr Mujeyi to run away from the blame by shifting blame to an unnamed secretary in the law firm…,. It is also important to note that there is no supporting affidavit from the receptionist in Bruce Mujeyi's legal firm who ...
More

HB122-18 : JOSEPH MARSHAL STUART vs NATIONAL RAILWAYS OF ZIMBABWE
Ruled By: NDOU J

The plaintiff has applied for leave to re-open the case to adduce further evidence after the close of the defendant's case. This kind of application is rare in practice. This interlocutory application should, however, be understood in the context of the peculiar facts of this case. The gravamen of this application is the following: When the plaintiff was presenting his ...
More

HH05-03 : U-FREIGHT EUROMAR (PRIVATE) LIMITED vs EMMANUEL MUTEBUKA
Ruled By: MAKARAU J

The first factual dispute that I have to deal with is the identity of the person in Dubai who gave the money to the defendant. In the same breath, it is important to determine what the payment was for. In determining this issue, I take note of the fact that in his evidence in chief, John ...
More

HH213-18 : BULCHIMEX GmbH IMPORT-EXPORT CHEMIKALIEN und PRODUKTE and TECHNOIMPEX SOFIA BULGARIA JSC vs BULCHIMEX GMBH IMPORT EXPORT CHEMIKALIEN und PRODUKTE PL and SARAH HWINGWIRI and R. JOGI
Ruled By: MANGOTA J

The applicants are foreign legal entities. The first is a German company. It is owned by a Bulgarian Corporation. The second is a Bulgarian entity. It is a subsidiary of the first.Until 22 November 2017 the first applicant was the owner of a certain piece of land which is situated ...
More

Appealed
SC04-20 : NICKOLAS VAN HOOGSTRATEN vs TAPIWA NELOMWE
Ruled By: GARWE JA, MAVANGIRA JA and MATHONSI JA

This is an appeal against the whole judgment of the High Court handed down on 18 July 2018 in which it ordered the appellant to deliver to the respondent 167,275 Old Mutual Public Limited Company shares within 10 days of the date of the order. Alternatively, it ordered the appellant ...
More

View Appeal
HH444-18 : TAPIWA NALOMWE vs NICHOLAS VAN HOOGSTRATEN
Ruled By: ZHOU J

The plaintiff instituted the summons in casu claiming the following relief against the defendant:“1. An order compelling the defendant to transfer 167,275 Old Mutual Public Limited Company shares to the plaintiff within ten (10) days of the date of the order; being shares which the plaintiff transferred to the defendant ...
More

View Appeal
HH253-16 : ENGEN PETROLEUM ZIMBABWE [PVT] LTD vs WEDZERA PETROLEUM [PVT] LTD and INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT BANK OF ZIMBABWE
Ruled By: MAFUSIRE J

This was a civil trial. The first defendant [“Wedzera”] was in default. On application by the plaintiff [“Engen”] in respect to which the second defendant [“the Bank” or “IDBZ”] had nothing to say, I entered a default judgment against Wedzera, in favour of the plaintiff, in the sum of $847,847=65, ...
More

View Appeal
HH339-18 : KUDAKWASHE MURAPE and MABLE MURAPE vs MUCHANETA CHATAMBUDZA
Ruled By: CHIKOWERO J

The crisp issue for determination is whether, at the material time, the defendant did not have the mental capacity to enter into the Agreement of Sale by reason of insanity.If the answer is in the affirmative, the Agreement of Sale entered into between the plaintiffs and the defendant, on 26 ...
More

View Appeal
HH540-16 : ALASTAIR SMITH vs ABIGAIL SMITH
Ruled By: UCHENA J

The plaintiff sued his wife, the defendant, seeking a decree of divorce and other ancillary orders.The parties were married on 5 October 1991 in Bulawayo. Their marriage was blessed with a son who has since attained the age of majority and obtained his first degree. He is staying with the ...
More

SC70-20 : CITY OF HARARE vs AMOS CHIKWANDA
Ruled By: BHUNU JA

This is an application for reinstatement of an appeal in terms of Rule 34(5) of the Supreme Court Rules, 1964.The brief facts giving rise to the application are that the applicant employed the respondent as its clerical officer.Sometime in October 2011, the respondent received and receipted a total amount of ...
More

Back Main menu

Categories