Law Portal
Zimbabwe

Welcome To Law Portal

Welcome, Guest!
[Help?]

Cause of Action re: Suits or Proceedings Against the State, State Agents and Statutory Notice of Intention to Sue

HH29-09 : FIDELIS CHIRAMBA and OTHERS vs MINISTER OF HOME AFFAIRS N.O. and COMMISSIONER GENERAL OF POLICE and OFFICER COMMANDING CID HOMICIDE, Chief Supt MAKEDENGE and DETECTIVE CONSTABLE MUUYA
Ruled By: HUNGWE J

In this application, the applicants seek an order -(a) Declaring their arrest and continued detention unlawful;(b) Requiring the respondents and all those calling through them or acting on their behalf to permit the applicants access to medical treatment at medical centres of their choice;(c) Directing the respondents or anyone calling ...
More

HH140-09 : CRUISER BOND (PRIVATE) LIMITED vs ZIMBABWE REVENUE AUTHORITY
Ruled By: UCHENA J

The dispute between the parties started in late September 2007. On 19 February 2008, the applicant notified the Commissioner General of its intention to institute proceedings. The applicant then filed this application in April 2008.
More

HB115-09 : TASMINE ENTERPRISES P/L vs ZIMBABWE REVENUE AUTHORITY
Ruled By: NDOU J

In any event, any such institution of proceedings has to be done after sixty (60) days notice has been given to the respondent of the applicant's intention to institute civil proceedings in terms of section 196(1) of the Customs and Excise Act [Chapter 23:02].
More

HH21-10 : TIME SAHWIRA MUPINGA vs THE COMMISSION GENERAL ZIMBABWE REVENUE AUTHORITY (ZIMRA) and MINISTER OF FINANCE
Ruled By: MTSHIYA J

The first respondent, in its heads of argument filed by its legal practitioner on 8 September 2009 initially raised a point in limine. The point was that the applicant should have, in terms of section 196(1) of the Customs and Excise Act [Chapter 23:02] given notice of intention to institute legal proceedings against the first ...
More

HH42-10 : BERNCORN (PVT) LTD T/A TWO KEYS TRANSPORT vs ZIMBABWE REVENUE AUTHORITY
Ruled By: CHATUKUTA J

The respondent raised a point in limine that the applicant did not comply with section 196 of the Customs and Excise Act [Chapter 23:02]. Section 196 of the Customs and Excise Act [Chapter 23:02] requires a party intending to institute proceedings against the State, the Commissioner, or an officer, for anything done or under the Customs ...
More

View Appeal
HH273-10 : WYNINA (PRIVATE) LIMITED vs MBCA BANK LIMITED
Ruled By: PATEL J

On the one hand, in terms of section 4 of the Reserve Bank Act [Chapter 22:15], the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe is constituted as “a body corporate capable of suing and being sued in its own name.” On the other hand, by virtue of its distinctive functions and centrality within the State apparatus, it ...
More

HH90-11 : PATRICK MUSARARA vs THE COMMISSIONER GENERAL ZIMBABWE REVENUE AUTHORITY
Ruled By: MTSHIYA J

The applicant, having given the necessary notice, is properly before the court.
More

HB186-11 : RONALD MACHACHA vs ZIMBABWE REVENUE AUTHORITY
Ruled By: NDOU J

The salient facts of the case are the following.On 9 June 2010, the applicant hired his vehicle, described above, together with its driver, Absolom Murada, to one Phanuel Chiwandire. The vehicle was used to smuggle 27 boxes and 24 bricks of Seville cigarettes and 25 bricks of Mega cigarettes from Zimbabwe into Botswana through an ...
More

HB02-14 : BETTY DUBE vs ZIMBABWE REVENUE AUTHORITY
Ruled By: KAMOCHA J

The applicant acknowledged that it had been brought to her attention that in terms of section 196 of the Customs and Excise Act, in ordinary civil actions against the Commissioner, at least two (2) months notice of intention to institute litigation against the Commissioner for anything done or omitted to be done in terms ...
More

SC44-13 : RESERVE BANK OF ZIMBABWE vs ZIMBABWE REVENUE AUTHORITY
Ruled By: MALABA DCJ, ZIYAMBI JA and OMEERJEE AJA

The immunity the appellant sought to raise as a shield against the claim by the respondent is only limited to a situation where the appellant has acted within the confines of the statute. If the appellant were to be sued for a debt, the defence of immunity would only be available to it ...
More

CC11-15 : ARTHUR MUTAMBARA vs THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ZIMBABWE and COMMISSIONER GENERAL OF POLICE
Ruled By: CHIDYAUSIKU CJ, MALABA DCJ, ZIYAMBI JCC, GWAUNZA JCC, GARWE JCC, GOWORA JCC, HLATSHWAYO JCC, GUVAVA JCC and MAVANGIRA AJCC

Secondly, and more to the point, however, is the fact that the applicant, by his own admission, accepts that the 'íncumbent' presidential candidate concerned was, at the time he allegedly made the utterances, the President of the country. As correctly submitted for the respondent, the President was, as such, immune from prosecution. Section 30(1) ...
More

HMA17-17 : MAIN ROAD MOTORS (Case 1) and SYLVIA CHORUWA (Case 2) vs COMMISSIONER – GENERAL, ZIMRA
Ruled By: MAFUSIRE J

Section 196 of the Customs and Excise Act [Chapter 23:02], among other things, requires that sixty days' notice for any civil proceedings against the State or the Commissioner or any officer for anything done, or omitted to be done, be given before action is taken.
More

Appealed
SC76-17 : CARE INTERNATIONAL IN ZIMBABWE vs ZIMBABWE REVENUE AUTHORITY and DESMOND MAMINIMINI and SURVIVAL HARDWARE (PRIVATE) LIMITED
Ruled By: GOWORA JA, HLATSHWAYO JA and BHUNU JA

This is an appeal against a judgment of the High Court upholding a preliminary point to the effect that the application before it was premature for want of compliance with a statutory requirement. The appellant is a non-profit making organization duly registered in terms of the laws of Zimbabwe. It has been operating in the country as ...
More

View Appeal
HH373-15 : CARE INTERNATIONAL IN ZIMBABWE vs ZIMBABWE REVENUE AUTHORITY and DESMOND MANINIMINI and SURVIVAL HARDWARE (PRIVATE) LIMITED
Ruled By: MTSHIYA J

The first point in limine raised by the first respondent, that the applicant had not complied with section 196(1) of the Customs and Excise Act [Chapter 23:02] (“the Act”), is of crucial importance because all the other points can only be dealt with if the applicant is properly before the court - that includes points raised by the other respondents. ...
More

HH27-18 : SAMSON MEKI vs AIR ZIMBABWE (PVT) LTD and AIR ZIMBABWE HOLDINGS (PVT) LTD and COMMERCIAL BANK OF ZIMBABWE LTD
Ruled By: HUNGWE J

Order 42 Rule 377 of the High Court Rules, 1971 provides: “ORDER 42 ATTACHMENT OF DEBTS 377. Court Application for attachment of debt due to judgment debtor A judgment creditor who has obtained a judgment or order for the recovery or payment of money, which judgment or order is unsatisfied, may make a court application for an order that any money at present due ...
More

HH147-15 : TENDAI MANGWIRO vs CO-MINISTERS OF HOME AFFAIRS and COMMISSIONER-GENRAL OF POLICE and OFFICER IN CHARGE CID SUSPECTS HARARE CENTRAL POLICE and DETECTIVE INSPECTOR MUKAMBI
Ruled By: MUSAKWA J

In this application for default judgment, the plaintiff seeks an order to the effect that -“1. The respondents, jointly and severally, pay the applicant the sum of US$78,900.2. The respondents, jointly and severally, pay the applicant the sum of US$1,537,833=33 being the United States Dollar equivalent of ZW$46,135,000,000.3. Interest at ...
More

HH477-13 : BARCLAYS BANK OF ZIMBABWE LIMITED vs RESERVE BANK OF ZIMBABWE and UNIVERSITY OF ZIMBABWE
Ruled By: ZHOU J

In its opposition, the first respondent objected in limine to its citation in the instant application on the ground that it should have been given notice of sixty days as required by section 6 of the State Liabilities Act [Chapter 8:14] as read together with section 63B of the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe Act [Chapter ...
More

HMA01-18 : MAIN ROAD MOTORS and SYLVIA CHORUWA and PATRICK MUGUTI vs ZIMBABWE REVENUE AUTHORITY and MINISTER OF FINANCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT and ATTORNEY GENERAL
Ruled By: MAFUSIRE J

The Zimbabwe Revenue Authority's (ZIMRA) first technical objection in respect of Case 3 was that the applicant was non-suited by reason of his failure to comply with the mandatory provision of section 196(1) of the Customs and Excise Act [Chapter 23:02]. This provision requires that sixty days' notice be given before any civil proceedings are instituted for anything ...
More

HH181-16 : MICHAEL NYIKA and CRISPEN TOBAIWA 1 vs MINISTER OF HOME AFFAIRS 2 and COMMISSIONER GENERAL, POLICE N.O. and INSPECTOR DAMBURAI and CONSTABLE LISBORNE CHIBANDA
Ruled By: TSANGA J

The rationale for giving notification of intention to sue State institutions is explained as being grounded in the need to give such institutions an opportunity to investigate and consider claims against them. It also accords an opportunity to decide, before getting embroiled in litigation, at public expense, whether they ought to accept, reject, or endeavour to ...
More

HH93-15 : ROMUS GUMISAI CHIHOTA vs MINISTER OF HOME AFFAIRS and COMMISSIONER GENERAL–ZIMBABWE REPUBLIC POLICE and OFFICER IN CHARGE- ZRP CHIREDZI
Ruled By: MATHONSI J

The plaintiff was required to give sixty (60) days notice of the intended suit in terms of section 6 of the State Liabilities Act [Chapter 8:14]....,. He did not. A failure to comply with those provisions renders the action a nullity. While a failure to comply may be condoned in appropriate circumstances, there has been no attempt to seek ...
More

HH658-15 : CHARLES NGONI vs MINISTER OF HOME AFFAIRS and THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE and OFFICER CHIMEDZA
Ruled By: TSANGA J

Section 2 of the State Liabilities Act [Chapter 8:14] provides as follows: “Any claim against the State which would, if that claim had arisen against a private person, be the ground of an action in any competent court, shall be recognisable by any such court whether the claim arises or has arisen out of any contract lawfully entered into ...
More

HH169-15 : ZIMBABWE PLATINUM MINES (PRIVATE) LIMITED vs ZIMBABWE REVENUE AUTHORITY and STANBIC BANK and MNISTERS OF MINES AND MINING DEVELOPMENT and MINERALS MARKETING CORPORATION OF ZIMBABWE
Ruled By: MAKONI J

Invalidity of Proceedings The first respondent…, raised four points in limine. viz:- (i) The court application is invalid and constitutes a legal nullity for want of compliance with the mandatory provisions of the State Liabilities Act [Chapter 8:14]. (ii)….,. (iii) The first respondent is an agent of the Government of Zimbabwe and attracts no personal liability from the transactions subject to the claim by ...
More

HMA22-18 : SIMBARASHE CHARUMA and PRINCE CHINDAWANDE vs THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA and THE MINISTER OF HOME AFFAIRS N.O.
Ruled By: MAFUSIRE J

The applicants' notice to the Minister was by way of a letter dated 23 November 2017 from their legal practitioners…,.The letter read as follows: “RE: NOTICE OF INTENDED APPLICATION FOR DISCHARGE FROM EXTRADITION ON [sic] PRINCE CHANDAWANDE AND SIMBA CHARUMA MUTIZA IN TERMS OF SECTION 33(2) OF THE EXTRADITION ACT We refer your attention to the above matter. We represent Mr. Chindawande and ...
More

HH485-16 : PUWAYI CHIUTSI LEGAL PRACTITIONERS vs THE REGISTRAR OF THE HIGH COURT and THE TAXING OFFICER
Ruled By: CHIGUMBA J

This application came before me on the unopposed roll for an order that the respondents refund the applicant the sum of USD$4,641=40 and pay costs of suit on a higher scale in the event that they oppose the granting of the order.A report was filed on behalf of the first ...
More

HH99-18 : C F (PVT) LTD vs ZIMBABWE REVENUE AUTHORITY
Ruled By: KUDYA J

This is an appeal against four amended income tax assessments number 20211442 for the year ending 31 December 2009; 20211443 for the year ending 31 December 2010; 202211446 for the year ending 31 December 2011; and 20211448 for the year ending 31 December 2012 that were issued against the appellant ...
More

Back Main menu

Categories