Professional Ethics, Legal Duty to the Court and Clients, Dominus Litis and Correspondence with the Court

HH86-12 : ELIJAH KASEZA vs LANGTON KASEZA and WINNIE MURAPE
Ruled By: MAVANGIRA J

This matter was initially set down for hearing on 11 June 2009 on which date it was postponed to 10 July 2009. It was again postponed a number of times and was finally heard on 3 February 2011 after which date the court called for supplementary heads of argument from both legal practitioners for reasons appearing later in this judgment.

The applicant seeks the following order:

“IT IS ORDERED THAT;

1. The second respondent be and is hereby compelled to uplift caveat she noted on Stand 7813 Fountainbleau Township of Fountainbleau Estate measuring 200 square metres. (sic).

2. The first respondent be and is hereby ordered to transfer Stand 7813 Fountainbleau Township of Fountainbleau Estate measuring 200 square metres (sic).

3. The first and second respondents and all those claiming possession through them be and are hereby ordered to vacate the above property within ten (10) days of this order failing which the Deputy Sheriff be and is hereby authorized to evict the respondent.

4. Or, alternatively, the first respondent be and is hereby authorized to pay the applicant the current market value of the property within (10) ten days of this order.

5. The first and second respondents be and are hereby ordered to pay costs of suit.”

The applicant's case is as follows;

On 19/09/07, and through Amazon Real Estate Agents, the applicant entered into an Agreement of Sale with the first respondent. In terms of the agreement, the applicant purchased from the respondent an immovable property, namely, Stand No.7813 Fountainbleau Township or Fountainbleau Estate, also known as House No.7813 Kuwadzana 4, Harare.

The purchase price for the property was $5 billion ($5,000,000,000).

In terms of clause 2 of the Agreement of Sale, payment for the property was to be made through the estate agents. It was also a term of the agreement that Mushuma Law Chambers, legal practitioners, were to transfer the property into the applicant's name.

The applicant alleges that despite the fact that he has paid the purchase price in full, the first respondent has not transferred the property into his name.

The applicant avers that sometime in January 2008 he approached Mushuma Law Chambers with a view to ascertaining the cause for the delay in effecting transfer of the property into his name. He avers that it was at that stage that he then learnt that the first and second respondent were formerly husband and wife and that their divorce order had awarded 30% of the market value of the immovable property to the second respondent.

He avers that he was also surprised to learn that Mushuma Law Chambers had also acted as the first respondent's legal practitioners in the divorce proceedings. He avers that Mushuma Law Chambers had not disclosed to him the circumstances in which the house was being sold to him....,.

Attached to the applicant's answering affidavit is an affidavit by Oliver Mushuma, a legal practitioner of Mushuma Law Chambers....,.

He denies that he never mentioned to the applicant that Mushuma Law Chambers acted for the first respondent in the divorce matter.

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 ...

Appealed
HH94-12 : ERIC MUSUNDIRE vs OK ZIMBABWE
Ruled By: BERE J

At the close of the defendant's case I requested the two legal practitioners to file written submissions. I appreciate the detailed and well-thought submissions presented.

Appealed
HH211-10 : VIRGINIA CHIKADAYA [in her capacity as The Executrix Dative of Cyril Chikadaya] vs CLADIOS CHENGA and ZAKEYO CHIKADAYA and BEAUTY MPOFU and REGISTRAR OF DEEDS
Ruled By: KUDYA J

On 13 March 2001, in case No.11678/1998, the second defendant filed a letter dated 6 February 2001 of his change of address of service from the property in dispute to 15, 733-75 Close, Sunningdale 2….,.

HH159-12 : URMILLA GIGA vs ALBION PROPERTIES and MESSENGER OF COURT HARARE and APPLISET INVESTMENTS (PVT) LTD
Ruled By: UCHENA J

The applicant was the first respondent's tenant at Number 5 Albion House, 74 Harare. She was evicted from the premises without being given 48 hours notice as provided by Rule 4A(1) of Order 26 of the Magistrate's Court (Rules 1980).She seeks an order of this court reinstating her into the ...

HH53-09 : ZIMBABWE ALLIED GROUP LTD vs MILDRED AND MATHIAS (PVT) LTD
Ruled By: MAKONI J

Litigants, and legal practitioners in particular, must bear in mind that litigation is not a battle of wits whereby they strive to outwit each other. They should know that the object of the litigation is to do justice. I can do no better than to quote WESSELS J in Whittaker v Ross Anor 1911 ...

HH26-08 : MOVEMENT FOR DEMOCRATIC CHANGE vs TIMOTHY MUBHAWU
Ruled By: HUNGWE J

This matter was placed before me through the Chamber Book as an urgent application on March 10, 2008. The applicant seeks the following provisional order against the respondent:“Pending confirmation or discharge of this Provisional Order;1. The respondent be and is forthwith hereby interdicted and restrained from using the applicant's name ...

HHH48-09 : THE ATTORNEY GENERAL vs AMINATA BOMBO and TSHIBASU MUKUBA and BILOLO TSHELA and TSHELA MUKUBA and KABWE KONGOLO and TSHIVUANDI KAFUNDA and BLAISE MUKENGE and MAVIS MUKENGE
Ruled By: BHUNU J

Judicial work is a painstaking job which calls for unwavering dedication to duty. Taking the easy way out..., can easily compromise the ends of justice either way. A judicial officer must not only ensure that justice is done but that it is seen to be done.

HH08-12 : LOREEN MASHANGWA vs CHRISPEN BHADHI and TICHA DARANGWA and THE MINING COMMISSIONER GWERU
Ruled By: MAWADZE J

This is an urgent chamber application for a provisional order whose interim relief sought is stated as follows:“INTERIM RELIEF GRANTEDPending determination of the lawful owner of ANSH NORTH situated on the following map coordinates;Point A 0187976 ...

This is an urgent chamber application for a provisional order whose interim relief sought is stated as follows:

“INTERIM RELIEF GRANTED

Pending determination of the lawful owner of ANSH NORTH situated on the following map coordinates;

Point A 0187976
7820147

Point B 0188251
7820232

Point C 0188307
7820018

Point D 0188139
7820018

The first and second respondents be and are hereby barred and interdicted from carrying out any mining operations on ANSH NORTH and coming within one hundred metres of the coordinates stated above.

SERVICE

Service of this provisional order to be effected by a clerk in the employ of Messrs Chinyama and Partners Legal Practitioners.”

The terms of the final order sought are in the following terms;

“TERMS OF FINAL ORDER SOUGHT

1. The applicant be and is hereby declared the sole and lawful holder of title over six gold reef claims knows as ANSH NORTH situated on the following map coordinates:

Point A 0187976
7820147

Point B 0188251
7820232

Point C 0188307
7820018

Point D 0188139
7820018

2. The first and second respondents be and are hereby barred and interdicted from entering and mining on ANSH NORTH on the map coordinates stated in (1) above.

3. The first and second respondents to pay the cost of suit on a legal practitioner to client scale.”

Before I proceed to deal with this matter, I wish to comment on the undue haste with which the applicant handled this urgent application.

The urgent chamber application was filed with this court on 9 December 2011 and I was allocated the matter on 12 December 2011. This is so on account of the fact that 9 December 2011 was a Friday.

I perused the record on the same day and noted a number of anomalies which are as follows;

(i) The urgent chamber application was not complete as Annexure B referred to in the applicant's founding affidavit was not attached;

(ii) Annexure A referred to in the applicant's founding affidavit was not marked as such; and

(iii) The application was not paginated and properly indexed.

I was of the view that the matter could have been urgent hence I instructed the applicant to correct the anomalies before I could set the matter down.

This was done on 13 December 2011 and I proceeded to set the matter down for hearing on 15 December 2011.

The point is made that urgent applications, by their nature, demand that legal practitioners apply their minds not only to the facts of the matter but in the drafting and preparation of the papers filed. Valuable time of the court is lost perusing papers which are not in order and are referred back to the applicant before a proper determination is made.

There was no plausible explanation for this negligent approach on such mundane issues by the applicant's counsel. Such conduct is inexcusable, and, in a proper case, the court may refuse to hear the applicant on an urgent basis.

HH83-12 : BASIMON TAPFUMANEYI vs NOAH MUSARURO (in his capacity as Executor of the Estate Late Vasco Musaruro) AND FIVE OTHERS
Ruled By: MAWADZE J

The plaintiff's prayer is not drafted in a clear and astute manner expected of a legal practitioner. The property in issue is clumsily identified..., and the parties not precisely cited. The language used is not succinct.

HH104-12 : EXPOSALES (PRIVATE) LIMITED vs POLY PACKAGING (PRIVATE) LIMITED
Ruled By: MUTEMA J

The legal practitioner for the respondent came to court not dressed in the required attire-prompting the court to invoke the age old custom of saying that "I don't see you and I don't hear you."

HH22-09 : JONAH MUFUNDISI vs GLORIA RUSERE
Ruled By: BERE J

It is most unusual that a legal practitioner would advise his law firm to refuse to accept court process for whatever reason. I think such an attitude represents a brutal act to the rules of professional ethics as I perceive them. It is an act which is clearly calculated to subvert court process and ...

HH23-09 : TUVIGARI INVESTMENTS (PRIVATE) LIMITED vs LUCY CHIREMBA (nee Gotora) AND TWO OTHERS
Ruled By: BERE J

The applicant's counsel attacked the first respondent's counsel for having snatched a judgment...,. I must point out that allegations of snatching at judgments are of serious magnitude for they portray the accused law firm in bad light. Legal practitioners must be careful to avoid casting aspersions on fellow legal practitioners in their quest to build ...

HH02-12 : SWANDALE PROPERTIES (PRIVATE) LIMITED vs VENENCIA MADAKE AND MUNICIPALITY OF HARARE
Ruled By: MUTEMA J

It behoves me to utter some strictures concerning the applicant's improper conduct of embarking upon a multiplicity of suits regarding the same subject matter. There was the appeal against the interdict against it by the magistrate's court, the application for the contempt of court as well as the present one for cancellation of the lease ...

SC29-12 : ANNA MARANGE vs JOSEPH CHIROODZA
Ruled By: MALABA DCJ

This is a matter which reflects a high degree of negligence on the part of the legal practitioners who handled the applicant's appeal.

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 ...

HH111-08 : RAILWAY ARTISANS UNION and RAILWAY ASSOCIATION OF YARD OPERATING STAFF and ANOR vs RAILMED and NATIONAL RAILWAYS OF ZIMBABWE and RAILWAYS EMPLOYMENT COUNCIL
Ruled By: GOWORA J

This matter was initially placed before me under a certificate of urgency. As the final and interim relief sought on the provisional order were the same, I wrote an endorsement on the face of the application querying the manner in which the relief had been framed.The letter of explanation was ...

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 through them or acting on their behalf to produce the applicants before a High Court Judge in Chambers within two hours of the order being made, or, alternatively, take the applicants for a remand at the Magistrates Court at/or before 12h00 on 11th November 2008 failing which the respondents and all those calling through them or on their behalf shall forthwith release all the applicants from custody and that thereafter no Magistrates Court should entertain the matter for remand purposes save for trial purposes, applicants having been duly summoned.

They also seek an order for costs on a higher scale.

The application was placed before me through the Chamber Book as an urgent application on 6 November 2008. After perusing the papers, I directed that the applicant serves the application on the respondents as well as on the office of the Attorney-General.

I considered that the matter merited speedy consideration and that the Rules of Court relating to notice be dispensed with in the interests of the rights of the applicants. The matter was to be set down for hearing the next day at 10h00.

The application is premised on an affidavit deposed to by the applicants' counsel, Mr Andrew Mukoni. He makes the following averments:

The applicants are Fidelis Chiramba, Pieta Kaseke, Terry Musona, Fanuel Tembo, Mrs Mutemagau, Mr Manyemwe, Lloyd Tarumbwa and others. The third and fourth respondents are police officers responsible for the arrest and detention of the applicants. The police officers operate under the direction and control of the first and second respondents.

On 3rd November 2008, Mr Makoni was instructed to represent all the applicants. From the information he gathered, the applicants were being dealt with by either CID Homicide Section or CID Law and Order Section at Harare Central Police Station although they had been arrested in places around Banket and Chinhoyi.

Upon visiting CID Law and Order section, the Officer-in-Charge of that section professed ignorance of the matter. When he then visited Homicide section, he learnt that the third respondent was handling the matter. Upon requesting audience with him, the latter was said to be too busy to see the applicants' counsel. He also gathered information concerning the detention of the applicants at various police stations around Harare.

A visit to these stations, however, indicated that the applicants had been released into the custody of the fourth respondent.

He concluded that the police were detaining the applicants illegally for the reason that the 48 hour period permitted at law had long expired. He also believed that the police were holding the applicants in communicado. He feared that the applicants were being subjected to torture, ill-treatment or other inhuman and degrading treatment as access to legal practitioners was being denied. He believed that police had no legal basis for detaining the applicants hence they had failed to take the applicants to court within 48 hours as required of them by law. He believed that the applicants were being subjected to such ill treatment for the purposes of unlawfully extracting from them confessions without legal representation.

He therefore prayed that the applicants be produced at court or be released.

At the hearing, counsel for the respondents indicated that the police did not have the applicants in their custody, and, therefore, were unable to release the applicants. He pointed out that the police deny arresting the applicants as no evidence of such an arrest had been produced by the applicants.

In view of the attitude of the respondents, the matter was postponed to 11 November 2008 to allow the applicants to file further affidavits to address the following questions:

(a) Where are the applicants detained?

(b) What are their detention book numbers, if any?

(c) Under what circumstances were they detained?

(d) On whose authority are they detained?

(e) What are the applicants full and further particulars?

(f) What other persons were arrested and detained under similar circumstances as the present applicants?

(g) What is the registration number or numbers of the vehicles which conveyed the applicants if any?; and

(h) Whether any criminal charges were preferred against any of the detainees.

The respondents, particularly the third and fourth respondents, for their part, were directed to file affidavits answering the allegations raised in the founding as well as the supplementary affidavit.

On 10 November 2008, Mr Makoni filed his supplementary affidavit as directed by the Court. The respondents did not file any affidavit despite being directed to do so by the Court.

Appealed
SC28-10 : JONATHAN MOYO and MOSES NDLOVU and PATRICK DUBE and SIYABONGA NCUBE vs AUSTIN ZVOMA N.O., CLERK OF PARLIAMENT and LOVEMORE MOYO
Ruled By: CHIDYAUSIKU CJ, MALABA DCJ, SANDURA JA, ZIYAMBI JA and GARWE JA

Although I would dismiss the appeal, I think that the respondents should not get their costs from the applicants.The respondents used language in their affidavits which was insultive of the first applicant and added nothing to the determination of the questions before the courts. It offended its sense of fairness ...

HH101-09 : JULIET MUCHA vs PHILIMON MUCHA
Ruled By: BERE J

Before I conclude this matter, I must comment on the lackadaisical conduct of the defendant's counsel. Upon concluding the recording of evidence in this matter, I implored both the unrepresented plaintiff, and the defendant's counsel, to submit their written submissions on or before 5 October 2009. The unrepresented plaintiff submitted her written submissions in time, but as I write ...

HH144-09 : NEGOWAC SERVICES (PRIVATE) LIMITED vs 3D HOLDINGS (PRIVATE) LIMITED AND GIFTCARE ELECTRICAL (PVT) LTD t/a REG ELECTRICAL WHOLESALERS
Ruled By: MTSHIYA J

At the close of the defendants' case, I postponed the proceedings and asked for written submissions from the legal practitioners, which I received as arranged. I am grateful to the two legal practitioners for both their oral and written submissions which I found useful.

HH155-09 : VAIDA SIBIU vs BLANTINA BAMU and ELLISON MUKANDI and CHARITY MUKANDI and MARGARET BAMU and THE REGISTRAR OF DEEDS
Ruled By: MAKONI J

I must start by commending counsel for the applicant for filing comprehensive Heads of Argument that clearly outline the import of Rule 449.

View Appeal
HH161-09 : TINASHE MALVERN MADAMOMBE vs BINDURA MUNICIPAL COUNCIL and DANISO WAKATAMA and IVORY MATANHIRE and JAPHET KABANGA
Ruled By: GOWORA J

In view of the contention by counsel for the respondents, that, legally, a resolution could be issued for an elected Mayor to be removed, I requested that counsel on both sides of the divide file additional heads on the point. This has been done, and I am grateful to counsel for their diligence.

HB38-09 : GREENFIELD NYONI vs MRS. L. P. ELMISSING and MR.M. M. ELMISSING
Ruled By: CHEDA J

This is an application for directions in the execution of the provisional order.

The salient facts of the matter are that the applicant entered into a lease agreement with the respondents wherein he leased Shop Number 10 Njube Trading in 2003 and another shop in 2005 known as Jika Jika Bar, Restaurant and Grocery.

At the beginning of 2008, a rent dispute arose which resulted in this application.

I granted the provisional order on 5 January 2009 and the Deputy Sheriff effected service on both respondents. On 6 January 2009, the respondents filed a notice of opposition and served it on the applicants' legal practitioners on 7 January 2009. On the same day, the 7th day of January 2009, the respondents filed a notice of appeal to the Supreme Court appealing the interim relief.

On the advice of their legal practitioner that the appeal to the Supreme Court suspended the provisional order, the respondents disregarded the provisional order.

Upon receipt of this information, the applicants' legal practitioners contacted the respondents legal practitioners on the 12th day of January 2009 in an attempt to resolve the misconception regarding the effect of their “appeal”.

It is conceded by counsel for the respondents that he undertook to counsel for the applicant that the Deputy Sheriff would be advised to proceed with the removal of the respondents on the property thereby giving the applicant vacant possession. Counsel for the applicant had brought to his attention that he was due to leave the country on the 13th day of January 2009. Counsel for the respondents wrote a letter to counsel for the applicant's legal firm, the contents of which are as follows:-

“13 January 2009

Messrs Dube-Banda, Nzarayapenga and Partners
Legal Practitioners
Bulawayo

Dear Sirs

RE: GREENFIELD NYONI VS MRS. L. P EMISSIRY AND ANOTHER HC02/09, SC02/09 AND HC32/09

We are of the view that you used the wrong procedure in obtaining a hearing date for HC02/09. Your application was for directions yet your intention and draft order was to anticipate the matter. Be that as it may, the matter did not take off on the said date.

We are also of the view that if you are aggrieved with the Notice of Appeal filed by ourselves, you will have to file a separate application challenging it. It is our respectful view that the said Notice of Appeal cannot be dealt with within HC02/09.

We filed our Notice of Opposition in HC02/09. If the matter is to continue, we believe you should file you answering affidavit. However, in our view, until the appeal is dispensed with, it is not possible for HC02/09 to be heard.

If you believe our client is in contempt of court, we believe you know the procedure.

Yours faithfully

(signed)
CHEDA AND PARTNERS”

Counsel for the applicant has urged the court to give a directive in view of counsel for the respondents conduct as he has assisted his client to be in contempt of court. The said contempt is based on the following facts which are not in dispute:-

1. The appeal is a nullity.

2. The order he appealed against is not appealable without the leave of the court.

3. Did not approach him for a set down date as per the court order.

4. To date he has not taken steps to prosecute the appeal.

5. He has not paid the security costs.

6. His clients remain in defiance of a court order.

7. He has remained defiant up to date.

In response to this, counsel for the respondents initially became defiant until, at a later stage of the proceedings, when he admitted that he did not act properly as he misled his client and consequently expressed sorrow for what he did.

The fact that the respondents are in contempt of court admits of no doubt. The law is clear in this point; a person who is in contempt remains so until he purges that contempt. Such a person cannot be heard until the contempt is purged.

Counsel for the applicant has urged the court to find counsel for the respondents guilty of misconduct.

In my view, the misconduct complained of was wilful.

In Lewis v Great Western Railway Company BRAMWELL LJ (1877) 3 QBD 195…, defined it as follows:-

“'Willful misconduct' means misconduct to which the will is a party, something opposed to accident or negligence; the misconduct, not the conduct, must be willful. It has been said, and that, I think, correctly, that, perhaps, one condition of 'wilful misconduct', must be that the person guilty of it should know that mischief will result from it.”

The golden rule for misconduct for all legal practitioners is clearly set out in Legal Ethics, E.A.L. LEWIS…, where the learned author states:-

“A practitioner must avoid all conduct which, if known, could damage his reputation as an honourable citizen.”

A legal practitioner has a duty to act honestly and fairly at all times. In addition to this, he must always be truthful and candid in all his dealings.

Counsel for the respondents was not honest with his colleague when he misled him into believing that he would implement the agreement; that he would advise the Deputy Sheriff to execute the provisional order. In fact, all the complainants listed by counsel for the applicant (supra) are correct.

All I can say, without more, is that this type of conduct is deplorable and reprehensible.

Legal practitioners are warned to desist from this type of conduct lest their professional careers stand the risk of being brought to a complete halt. Lawyers, as officers of the court, have an unfailing duty to obey court orders and should not be seen to be assisting litigants in the said disobedience.

I find that counsel for the respondents actively and persistently assisted his clients to do so.

Counsel for the applicant has urged the court to award costs against counsel for the respondents de bonis propiis in view of his misconduct.

I find favour in this submission.

Infact, counsel for the respondents, at a very late stage of the proceedings, conceded that he had ill-advised his clients to disobey the court order.

I am of the opinion that this is an appropriate case for costs of this nature in order to show the court's indignation for such wilful misconduct by a legal practitioner.

The following order is made:-

(1) The provisional order issued by this court on the 15th day of January 2009 should be executed within 48 hours of this order; and

(2) Mr. Mangena should pay costs of today's hearing de bonis propriis.

HB56-09 : BENTONS (PVT) LTD vs SWAN PROPERTIES (PVT) LTD
Ruled By: NDOU J

On 27 April 2009, the applicant filed a notice of withdrawal of the notice of appeal. Counsel for the applicant “testified” from the bar that the date stamp of 27 April 2009 by the Registrar of this court is by error. He said the notice of withdrawal was filed on 28 April 2009. He said the ...

HH03-10 : ESTHER MWANYISA vs ENETI JUMBO and ISABEL SAMURIWO and MTIKUMBURA MOFFAT and THE CITY OF HARARE and THE MASTER OF THE HIGH COURT and ANOTHER
Ruled By: MAKARAU JP

Judges are public servants, and, as such, they are not to complain about what lands on their plates. They must do justice always nomatter the state of the case that is placed before them I must, however, confess that the above matter is a dog's breakfast.

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

Before I proceed to determine the objection on the merits, I wish to express my disquiet at the manner in which the objection was brought up and the heated arguments that have been characteristic of the hearing. It is my hope that the conduct of the parties herein will not set any precedent for future conduct ...

It is my hope that the conduct of the parties herein will not set any precedent for future conduct in this court.

Firstly, I was disconcerted by the practice of the plaintiffs' to write directly to me in connection with the matter. It is a trite rule of professional ethics that the parties to litigation do not enter into any correspondence with the presiding judge. All correspondence to and from the court is through the office of the Registrar.

Secondly, while the plaintiffs' had every right to write to the Minister of Justice of Justice and Legal Affairs in connection with the matter, the fact that such a letter was copied to the presiding judge acted as an open invitation to the Minister of Justice and Legal Affairs to enter into direct correspondence with the court. I must, however, commend the Honourable Minister for at least addressing his letter to the Registrar and not directly to me. However, the contents of the letter, which were meant for my attention, in my view, ought to have been placed before the court in the form of an affidavit and not an unsworn statement. The letter gave an opinion on the applicable law and the interpretation to be placed on the law. It concluded by requesting the Registrar to advise me to be guided accordingly.

Such, in my view, is the danger of requesting parties to correspond with the court outside the parameters set by the Rules of Court.

The net effect, however, of not following the correct procedures was the filing of an objection to which no founding affidavit was attached, the filing of a voluminous opposing affidavit by Advocate de Bourbon in which he attempted to answer the objection both factually and on points of law, and a hastily filed statement by the Law Society – which is neither an affidavit nor heads of argument. I further have a floating letter from the Minister of Justice and Legal Affairs, not attached to any affidavit and whose status in the proceedings is not clear to me, and to which no-one made specific reference as to its probative value or binding nature.

Be that as it may, I proceeded to hear the objection on its merits in view of the fact that the parties were desirous that I hear and determine the matter despite my earlier misgivings as to the state of the papers filed of record.

HH40-10 : THE DIOCESAN TRUSTEES FOR THE DIOCESE OF HARARE vs THE CHURCH OF THE PROVINCE OF CENTRAL AFRICA and BISHOP CHAD GANDIA
Ruled By: BHUNU J

Mr. Tranos Goronga, the judge's clerk, is an officer of this court who apparently has no interest in the outcome of this matter. That being the case, he is unlikely to deliberately mislead the court unless he is mistaken. He did not keep a record of the times alluded to in his affidavit otherwise he would ...

HH81-10 : MILRITE FARMING (PRIVATE ) LIMITED vs ENOCK PORUSINGAZI and THE MINISTER OF LANDS AND RURAL RESETTLEMENT and FOUR OTHERS
Ruled By: UCHENA J

A legal practitioner, as an officer of the court, has a duty to assist it in arriving at a correct decision. A legal practitioner shall not give the court incorrect information, or advice which is, to his knowledge, contrary to the law. He must not conceal material facts from the court or deliberately mislead ...

HH98-10 : FIONA EVELYN TAISEKWA JIRIRA vs ZIMCOR TRUSTEES LIMITED and REGISTRAR OF DEEDS
Ruled By: MAKARAU JP

Before I dispose of this matter, it is pertinent, in my view that I advert to one other issue of general concern. Litigants, unless they have been legally trained, do not frame their instructions to legal practitioners in legal terms. They are not expected to. Thus, they do not instruct their legal practitioners using terms that ...

HH114-10 : IAN SPENCE GRAY and PRINCIPLE BASED SOLUTIONS P/L vs THE REGISTRAR OF DEEDS
Ruled By: GOWORA J

When the matter was initially called, it appeared that counsel had not furnished the court with any authority on the issues to be determined. I therefore directed that each of them draft and file supplementary Heads of Argument citing, for my benefit, the authorities being relied upon by the respective parties; and I am ...

HH114-10 : IAN SPENCE GRAY and PRINCIPLE BASED SOLUTIONS P/L vs THE REGISTRAR OF DEEDS
Ruled By: GOWORA J

It appears that neither counsel was prepared to research on the issue.

HH116-10 : DEBORAH GLORIA KOUMIDES vs PAUL KOUMIDES
Ruled By: MAVANGIRA J

It was apparent that there is great animosity between the parties, and, unfortunately, that animosity had clearly also transferred onto both legal practitioners who constantly “fought” during the trial. At one stage, early in the trial, I had to call them to Chambers because of their unbecoming conduct and remonstrate with them.

HH118-10 : JOHN STRONG (PRIVATE) LIMITED and TOBS STRONG (PRIVATE) LIMITED vs WILLIAM WACHENUKA and MINISISTRY OF LANDS, AGRICULTURE AND RESETTLEMENT
Ruled By: GOWORA J

Subsequent to the order being granted, the first respondent has addressed several letters to the Registrar of this Honourable Court demanding a judgment. I have acceded to the request and I give my reasons hereunder.

HH153-10 : ACHIBOLD NDIDZANO vs PAULINE GONDORA and HOPEMORE ARUFANDIKA and HARDWORK MUTYENYOKA and SIX OTHERS
Ruled By: HUNGWE J

But the applicant's legal practitioners should have had the presence of mind to advise her Ladyship of the correct position in the proceedings before her were declared a nullity in 2006. It may well be that when he took over the file from his principal…, the applicant could not unpack the various stages each ...

HH157-10 : ISAU MUGUGU vs POLICE SERVICE COMMISSION and COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
Ruled By: GOWORA J

The manner in which the affidavits were drafted leaves a lot to be desired. Although an attempt was made to respond to the allegations in the various paragraphs, a number of paragraphs were lumped together for purposes of responding to the allegations, and, as a result, it is difficult to make sense of the ...

HH163-10 : BISSY BEE (PVT) LTD vs GRAIN MARKETING BOARD and BRUKMARK MICROFINANCE (PVT) LTD and DEPUTY SHERIFF-CHITUNGWIZA
Ruled By: MUSAKWA J

In one breath, Irene Kandawasvika claims ownership of all the attached goods, but elsewhere in the founding affidavit she sates that the motor vehicle belongs to her cousin. It just serves to show how lackadaisical the applicant has been in preparing this matter.

HH176-10 : JOYCE CHAGADURA vs SHELLY ANTONIO and REGIS MUVEREGI and DIRECTOR OF HOUSING CITY OF HARARE and SHERIFF OF THE HIGH COURT
Ruled By: GUVAVA J

After hearing the evidence in this matter, the notebook was inadvertently lost in the Registrars' office. The securing of a transcript has taken some time to obtain and this has accounted for the long delay in finalizing this matter.

HH190-10 : NGONI MUDEKUNYE and GLADYS CHAMUTSA and MASIMBA MUDEKUNYE and TAMBURIKA MUDEKUNYE vs AARON EVANS MUDEKUNYE and BERTHA MUDEKUNYE and DEPUTY SHERIFF CHIPINGE N.O.
Ruled By: BERE J

It is my view that when these courts deal with legal practitioners we must operate on the assumption that such legal practitioners are fully aware of their concomitant duty to both the court and their clients. We must regard them as fully fledged professionals and officers, or servants, of the court. But this does ...

HH191-10 : SHEPHERD MURAHWI and DEBORAH MURAHWI and PETER SIGAUKE and OTHERS vs MS MAGWENZI and ARROSUM CONSTRUCTION (PVT) LTD and DIVINE HOMES (PVT) LTD and NICANOR ENTERPRISES (PVT) LTD
Ruled By: BERE J

When we adjourned yesterday I had asked counsel to prepare heads of argument to give the court a broader and a more informed perception of the issues that occupied all of us yesterday. Immediately the parties had left my Chambers, and as I embarked on my crash research exercise, I realized I was able ...

HH192-10 : AEPROMM RESOURCES (PVT) LTD vs SAMUEL MAZOWE and PATTERSON TIMBA and STEVENSON TIMBA and MAGGIE DITIMA and TONDESAI KAPONDO
Ruled By: MTSHIYA J

On 20 August 2010, I dismissed this application with costs. The applicant has now placed before me a written request for the full reasons behind my dismissal of its application. The applicant says it needs the reasons because it intends to file an appeal in the Supreme Court urgently.

I give here below the reasons for my ruling.

On 12 August 2010, the applicant filed an urgent application in this court seeking the following interim relief:-

“Pending the finalization of the applicant is granted the following relief:

1. The 'Notice of Extraordinary General Meeting, issued by the first respondent, for a meeting to be held on 21 August 2010, is hereby declared null and void.

2. The respondents are hereby interdicted from purporting to act as Directors of the applicant and interfering with and/disrupting the applicant's management.

3. The respondents shall pay costs of this application.

4. That leave is granted to the applicant's legal practitioners to serve this order upon the respondents.”

The application was heard and dismissed for lack of urgency by HLATSHWAYO J on 19 August 2010. The result slip in the record confirms as follows:-

“Matter dismissed as not urgent.”

On 19 August 2010, the day HLATSHWAYO J made his ruling, the applicant noted an appeal in the Supreme Court. The Notice of Appeal states that the appeal is against the whole of the judgment of HLATSHWAYO J and grounds of appeal are then given as follows:-

“1. The learned Judge erred in finding that the applicant's application, HC5500/10, was not urgent on the basis that there was an inordinate delay between the time the issue of applicant's contested Directorship came to the attention of the applicant's deponent in HC5500/10 and the time of filing of HC5500/10.

In so doing, the learned Judge failed to appreciate the fact that the issue that has instigated urgency in HC5500/10 is the serving of notices of an Extraordinary General Meeting of the applicant, proposed by the respondents purportedly in their capacity as applicant's Directors.

The fact of speculative knowledge about the improper claim to Directorship by the respondents could not ground urgency in that that would essentially amount to creating urgency where none exists.

Prior to the issuance of the notice to attend an Extraordinary General Meeting therefore, the dispute as to Directorship could be resolved by way of an ordinary court application.

Upon the service of the notice to attend the Extraordinary General Meeting however, scheduled for 21 August 2010, the need arose to interdict the respondents from acting in a manner inconsistent with the position that their status as directors is disputed. Such an interdiction could not be dealt with by way of an ordinary court application. It could only be resolved by way of an urgent chamber application; as such, the learned Judge erred in finding that the matter was not urgent.

2. The learned Judge also erred in finding that the averment contained in the Supporting Affidavit of Ann Rushwaya, was evidence of the fact that as far back as the 22 August of June the applicant was aware of its purported change of Directorship. This is so because a speculative suspicion that party has done something unlawful does not ground urgency but the very act of actuating that illegal action, eg. by calling for an Extraordinary General Meeting, does ground such urgency; thus, despite the existence of that speculative suspicion in June 2010, the basis of urgency has only arisen upon the serving of the notices to attend an Extraordinary General Meeting.”

The judgment appealed against does not form part of the papers before me.

On 20 August 2010, the applicant filed this application seeking the following interim relief:-

“Pending the finalization of the applicant's appeal in the Supreme Court (SC197/10), the applicant is granted the following relief:

1. The respondents be and are hereby interdicted from holding the purported Extraordinary General Meeting of the applicant, scheduled for the 21st of August 2010.

2. The respondents shall pay the costs of this application.”

Clearly, the above is the same relief that was prayed for on 12 August 2010.

I heard the application on the same day it was filed, and, indeed, after hearing argument from both counsel I dismissed the application with costs.

The certificate of urgency in support of the application indicated that since the dismissal of the earlier application the issue of an interdict remained alive because the Extraordinary General Meeting proposed by the respondents was likely to be held on 21 August 2010. Furthermore, the certificate went on, the dismissed matter (HC5500/10) remained res litigiosa on account of the appeal noted in the Supreme Court. Accordingly, it was stated, if an interdict was not granted, the holding of the meeting on 21 August 2010, by the respondents, would stand to ignore the fact that there was pending litigation on the issue. The applicant therefore believed there was need for the matter to be dealt with through an urgent application.

I must hasten to mention that a few hours before the hearing of the application I had asked for heads of argument on whether or not leave to appeal was required in respect of the appeal filed in the Supreme Court on 19 August 2010.

I am indebted to counsel for the applicant who quickly filed heads of argument which I found useful.

HH139-10 : COLLIN JIMU vs LIFESAVER INVESTMENTS (PRIVATE) LIMITED and DEPUTY SHERIFF
Ruled By: HUNGWE J

The applicant, a self-actor, requested for written reasons for the decision dismissing this application on the date of hearing....,.

HH135-10 : TREVOR GIFFORD vs I. MUGOMBA and MUYESU and RONALD MUCHENGA and COMMISSIONER GENERAL OF POLICE
Ruled By: CHIWESHE JP

Papers received from both the applicant and the first respondent during the course of writing of this judgement confirm my construction of the history of the farm and the identification of subdivision 17 as the property to which the present dispute relates. I am indebted to both counsel for their prompt responses in that regard.

HH199-10 : Z. MEREKI vs FORRESTER ESTATE (PVT) LTD
Ruled By: MAKONI J

In my view, the conduct of the applicant's legal practitioners is beyond reproach. They did what they could in the circumstances. They directed correspondence to the address provided by the applicant. When they did not receive a response they proceeded to renounce agency.

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

I am indebted to counsel for the defendant for clearly highlighting the main reasons behind the defendant's refusal/rejection of the plaintiff's claim. ...,. I believe the reasons are indeed in line with the issues listed for determination at the pre-trial conference. I shall therefore deal with each of those summarised reasons and in so doing, ...

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

HH208-10 : MIKE CHIVHANGANYE and OLIVIA CHIVHANGANYE vs OACRIDGE PROPERTIES (PVT) LTD and THE HONOURABLE MAGISTRATE CHIBANDA (N.O.)
Ruled By: MUTEMA J

On 31 August, 2010 I dismissed with costs an urgent chamber application on the ground that the matter was not urgent. The applicants have noted an appeal to the Supreme Court and have asked for the written reasons on which the dismissal was predicated. These are they.

HH234-10 : RODGERS MADANGURE vs SHATO LUFEYI and DAYNDALE ENTERPRISES (PRIVATE) LIMITED and MUGEJO MAKONI
Ruled By: GOWORA J

In my view, it is particularly reprehensible for a legal practitioner to launch proceedings clothed with a semblance of authenticity which proceedings are averred at seeking relief to subvert the compliance by a party with an order of this court.

HH246-10 : IN RE PARSHOTAM and IN RE CHIBVEMBE and IN RE CHIDZIKWE vs x
Ruled By: PATEL J and GUVAVA J

Following jurisdictional queries raised in January 2010, the learned magistrate eventually responded on the 22nd of September 2010. There is no explanation for his inordinate delay in responding.

Appealed
HHH262-10 : ZIMBABWE POSTS (PVT) LTD vs COMMUNICATION AND ALLIED SERVICES WORKERS UNION OF ZIMBABWE
Ruled By: MUTEMA J

It also behoves me to remark that I hope that counsel for the applicant will not charge his client any fees regarding this aborted application.

prev 1 2 3 4 5 next

Back Main menu

Law Portal Zimbabwe

Professional Ethics, Legal Duty to the Court and Clients, Dominus Litis and Correspondence with the Court

HH86-12 : ELIJAH KASEZA vs LANGTON KASEZA and WINNIE MURAPE Ruled By: MAVANGIRA J

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

Appealed HH94-12 : ERIC MUSUNDIRE vs OK ZIMBABWE Ruled By: BERE J

Appealed HH211-10 : VIRGINIA CHIKADAYA [in her capacity as The Executrix Dative of Cyril Chikadaya] vs CLADIOS CHENGA and ZAKEYO CHIKADAYA and BEAUTY MPOFU and REGISTRAR OF DEEDS Ruled By: KUDYA J

HH159-12 : URMILLA GIGA vs ALBION PROPERTIES and MESSENGER OF COURT HARARE and APPLISET INVESTMENTS (PVT) LTD Ruled By: UCHENA J

HH53-09 : ZIMBABWE ALLIED GROUP LTD vs MILDRED AND MATHIAS (PVT) LTD Ruled By: MAKONI J

HH26-08 : MOVEMENT FOR DEMOCRATIC CHANGE vs TIMOTHY MUBHAWU Ruled By: HUNGWE J

HHH48-09 : THE ATTORNEY GENERAL vs AMINATA BOMBO and TSHIBASU MUKUBA and BILOLO TSHELA and TSHELA MUKUBA and KABWE KONGOLO and TSHIVUANDI KAFUNDA and BLAISE MUKENGE and MAVIS MUKENGE Ruled By: BHUNU J

HH08-12 : LOREEN MASHANGWA vs CHRISPEN BHADHI and TICHA DARANGWA and THE MINING COMMISSIONER GWERU Ruled By: MAWADZE J

HH83-12 : BASIMON TAPFUMANEYI vs NOAH MUSARURO (in his capacity as Executor of the Estate Late Vasco Musaruro) AND FIVE OTHERS Ruled By: MAWADZE J

HH104-12 : EXPOSALES (PRIVATE) LIMITED vs POLY PACKAGING (PRIVATE) LIMITED Ruled By: MUTEMA J

HH22-09 : JONAH MUFUNDISI vs GLORIA RUSERE Ruled By: BERE J

HH23-09 : TUVIGARI INVESTMENTS (PRIVATE) LIMITED vs LUCY CHIREMBA (nee Gotora) AND TWO OTHERS Ruled By: BERE J

HH02-12 : SWANDALE PROPERTIES (PRIVATE) LIMITED vs VENENCIA MADAKE AND MUNICIPALITY OF HARARE Ruled By: MUTEMA J

SC29-12 : ANNA MARANGE vs JOSEPH CHIROODZA Ruled By: MALABA DCJ

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

HH111-08 : RAILWAY ARTISANS UNION and RAILWAY ASSOCIATION OF YARD OPERATING STAFF and ANOR vs RAILMED and NATIONAL RAILWAYS OF ZIMBABWE and RAILWAYS EMPLOYMENT COUNCIL Ruled By: GOWORA J

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

Appealed SC28-10 : JONATHAN MOYO and MOSES NDLOVU and PATRICK DUBE and SIYABONGA NCUBE vs AUSTIN ZVOMA N.O., CLERK OF PARLIAMENT and LOVEMORE MOYO Ruled By: CHIDYAUSIKU CJ, MALABA DCJ, SANDURA JA, ZIYAMBI JA and GARWE JA

HH101-09 : JULIET MUCHA vs PHILIMON MUCHA Ruled By: BERE J

HH144-09 : NEGOWAC SERVICES (PRIVATE) LIMITED vs 3D HOLDINGS (PRIVATE) LIMITED AND GIFTCARE ELECTRICAL (PVT) LTD t/a REG ELECTRICAL WHOLESALERS Ruled By: MTSHIYA J

HH155-09 : VAIDA SIBIU vs BLANTINA BAMU and ELLISON MUKANDI and CHARITY MUKANDI and MARGARET BAMU and THE REGISTRAR OF DEEDS Ruled By: MAKONI J

View Appeal HH161-09 : TINASHE MALVERN MADAMOMBE vs BINDURA MUNICIPAL COUNCIL and DANISO WAKATAMA and IVORY MATANHIRE and JAPHET KABANGA Ruled By: GOWORA J

HB38-09 : GREENFIELD NYONI vs MRS. L. P. ELMISSING and MR.M. M. ELMISSING Ruled By: CHEDA J

HB56-09 : BENTONS (PVT) LTD vs SWAN PROPERTIES (PVT) LTD Ruled By: NDOU J

HH03-10 : ESTHER MWANYISA vs ENETI JUMBO and ISABEL SAMURIWO and MTIKUMBURA MOFFAT and THE CITY OF HARARE and THE MASTER OF THE HIGH COURT and ANOTHER Ruled By: MAKARAU JP

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

HH40-10 : THE DIOCESAN TRUSTEES FOR THE DIOCESE OF HARARE vs THE CHURCH OF THE PROVINCE OF CENTRAL AFRICA and BISHOP CHAD GANDIA Ruled By: BHUNU J

HH81-10 : MILRITE FARMING (PRIVATE ) LIMITED vs ENOCK PORUSINGAZI and THE MINISTER OF LANDS AND RURAL RESETTLEMENT and FOUR OTHERS Ruled By: UCHENA J

HH98-10 : FIONA EVELYN TAISEKWA JIRIRA vs ZIMCOR TRUSTEES LIMITED and REGISTRAR OF DEEDS Ruled By: MAKARAU JP

HH114-10 : IAN SPENCE GRAY and PRINCIPLE BASED SOLUTIONS P/L vs THE REGISTRAR OF DEEDS Ruled By: GOWORA J

HH114-10 : IAN SPENCE GRAY and PRINCIPLE BASED SOLUTIONS P/L vs THE REGISTRAR OF DEEDS Ruled By: GOWORA J

HH116-10 : DEBORAH GLORIA KOUMIDES vs PAUL KOUMIDES Ruled By: MAVANGIRA J

HH118-10 : JOHN STRONG (PRIVATE) LIMITED and TOBS STRONG (PRIVATE) LIMITED vs WILLIAM WACHENUKA and MINISISTRY OF LANDS, AGRICULTURE AND RESETTLEMENT Ruled By: GOWORA J

HH153-10 : ACHIBOLD NDIDZANO vs PAULINE GONDORA and HOPEMORE ARUFANDIKA and HARDWORK MUTYENYOKA and SIX OTHERS Ruled By: HUNGWE J

HH157-10 : ISAU MUGUGU vs POLICE SERVICE COMMISSION and COMMISSIONER OF POLICE Ruled By: GOWORA J

HH163-10 : BISSY BEE (PVT) LTD vs GRAIN MARKETING BOARD and BRUKMARK MICROFINANCE (PVT) LTD and DEPUTY SHERIFF-CHITUNGWIZA Ruled By: MUSAKWA J

HH176-10 : JOYCE CHAGADURA vs SHELLY ANTONIO and REGIS MUVEREGI and DIRECTOR OF HOUSING CITY OF HARARE and SHERIFF OF THE HIGH COURT Ruled By: GUVAVA J

HH190-10 : NGONI MUDEKUNYE and GLADYS CHAMUTSA and MASIMBA MUDEKUNYE and TAMBURIKA MUDEKUNYE vs AARON EVANS MUDEKUNYE and BERTHA MUDEKUNYE and DEPUTY SHERIFF CHIPINGE N.O. Ruled By: BERE J

HH191-10 : SHEPHERD MURAHWI and DEBORAH MURAHWI and PETER SIGAUKE and OTHERS vs MS MAGWENZI and ARROSUM CONSTRUCTION (PVT) LTD and DIVINE HOMES (PVT) LTD and NICANOR ENTERPRISES (PVT) LTD Ruled By: BERE J

HH192-10 : AEPROMM RESOURCES (PVT) LTD vs SAMUEL MAZOWE and PATTERSON TIMBA and STEVENSON TIMBA and MAGGIE DITIMA and TONDESAI KAPONDO Ruled By: MTSHIYA J

HH139-10 : COLLIN JIMU vs LIFESAVER INVESTMENTS (PRIVATE) LIMITED and DEPUTY SHERIFF Ruled By: HUNGWE J

HH135-10 : TREVOR GIFFORD vs I. MUGOMBA and MUYESU and RONALD MUCHENGA and COMMISSIONER GENERAL OF POLICE Ruled By: CHIWESHE JP

HH199-10 : Z. MEREKI vs FORRESTER ESTATE (PVT) LTD Ruled By: MAKONI J

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

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

HH208-10 : MIKE CHIVHANGANYE and OLIVIA CHIVHANGANYE vs OACRIDGE PROPERTIES (PVT) LTD and THE HONOURABLE MAGISTRATE CHIBANDA (N.O.) Ruled By: MUTEMA J

HH234-10 : RODGERS MADANGURE vs SHATO LUFEYI and DAYNDALE ENTERPRISES (PRIVATE) LIMITED and MUGEJO MAKONI Ruled By: GOWORA J

HH246-10 : IN RE PARSHOTAM and IN RE CHIBVEMBE and IN RE CHIDZIKWE vs x Ruled By: PATEL J and GUVAVA J

Appealed HHH262-10 : ZIMBABWE POSTS (PVT) LTD vs COMMUNICATION AND ALLIED SERVICES WORKERS UNION OF ZIMBABWE Ruled By: MUTEMA J

Categories

Your Donation.

Law Portal
Zimbabwe

HH86-12 : ELIJAH KASEZA vs LANGTON KASEZA and WINNIE MURAPE
Ruled By: MAVANGIRA J

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

Appealed
HH94-12 : ERIC MUSUNDIRE vs OK ZIMBABWE
Ruled By: BERE J

Appealed
HH211-10 : VIRGINIA CHIKADAYA [in her capacity as The Executrix Dative of Cyril Chikadaya] vs CLADIOS CHENGA and ZAKEYO CHIKADAYA and BEAUTY MPOFU and REGISTRAR OF DEEDS
Ruled By: KUDYA J

HH159-12 : URMILLA GIGA vs ALBION PROPERTIES and MESSENGER OF COURT HARARE and APPLISET INVESTMENTS (PVT) LTD
Ruled By: UCHENA J

HH53-09 : ZIMBABWE ALLIED GROUP LTD vs MILDRED AND MATHIAS (PVT) LTD
Ruled By: MAKONI J

HH26-08 : MOVEMENT FOR DEMOCRATIC CHANGE vs TIMOTHY MUBHAWU
Ruled By: HUNGWE J

HHH48-09 : THE ATTORNEY GENERAL vs AMINATA BOMBO and TSHIBASU MUKUBA and BILOLO TSHELA and TSHELA MUKUBA and KABWE KONGOLO and TSHIVUANDI KAFUNDA and BLAISE MUKENGE and MAVIS MUKENGE
Ruled By: BHUNU J

HH08-12 : LOREEN MASHANGWA vs CHRISPEN BHADHI and TICHA DARANGWA and THE MINING COMMISSIONER GWERU
Ruled By: MAWADZE J

HH83-12 : BASIMON TAPFUMANEYI vs NOAH MUSARURO (in his capacity as Executor of the Estate Late Vasco Musaruro) AND FIVE OTHERS
Ruled By: MAWADZE J

HH104-12 : EXPOSALES (PRIVATE) LIMITED vs POLY PACKAGING (PRIVATE) LIMITED
Ruled By: MUTEMA J

HH22-09 : JONAH MUFUNDISI vs GLORIA RUSERE
Ruled By: BERE J

HH23-09 : TUVIGARI INVESTMENTS (PRIVATE) LIMITED vs LUCY CHIREMBA (nee Gotora) AND TWO OTHERS
Ruled By: BERE J

HH02-12 : SWANDALE PROPERTIES (PRIVATE) LIMITED vs VENENCIA MADAKE AND MUNICIPALITY OF HARARE
Ruled By: MUTEMA J

SC29-12 : ANNA MARANGE vs JOSEPH CHIROODZA
Ruled By: MALABA DCJ

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

HH111-08 : RAILWAY ARTISANS UNION and RAILWAY ASSOCIATION OF YARD OPERATING STAFF and ANOR vs RAILMED and NATIONAL RAILWAYS OF ZIMBABWE and RAILWAYS EMPLOYMENT COUNCIL
Ruled By: GOWORA J

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

Appealed
SC28-10 : JONATHAN MOYO and MOSES NDLOVU and PATRICK DUBE and SIYABONGA NCUBE vs AUSTIN ZVOMA N.O., CLERK OF PARLIAMENT and LOVEMORE MOYO
Ruled By: CHIDYAUSIKU CJ, MALABA DCJ, SANDURA JA, ZIYAMBI JA and GARWE JA

HH101-09 : JULIET MUCHA vs PHILIMON MUCHA
Ruled By: BERE J

HH144-09 : NEGOWAC SERVICES (PRIVATE) LIMITED vs 3D HOLDINGS (PRIVATE) LIMITED AND GIFTCARE ELECTRICAL (PVT) LTD t/a REG ELECTRICAL WHOLESALERS
Ruled By: MTSHIYA J

HH155-09 : VAIDA SIBIU vs BLANTINA BAMU and ELLISON MUKANDI and CHARITY MUKANDI and MARGARET BAMU and THE REGISTRAR OF DEEDS
Ruled By: MAKONI J

View Appeal
HH161-09 : TINASHE MALVERN MADAMOMBE vs BINDURA MUNICIPAL COUNCIL and DANISO WAKATAMA and IVORY MATANHIRE and JAPHET KABANGA
Ruled By: GOWORA J

HB38-09 : GREENFIELD NYONI vs MRS. L. P. ELMISSING and MR.M. M. ELMISSING
Ruled By: CHEDA J

HB56-09 : BENTONS (PVT) LTD vs SWAN PROPERTIES (PVT) LTD
Ruled By: NDOU J

HH03-10 : ESTHER MWANYISA vs ENETI JUMBO and ISABEL SAMURIWO and MTIKUMBURA MOFFAT and THE CITY OF HARARE and THE MASTER OF THE HIGH COURT and ANOTHER
Ruled By: MAKARAU JP

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

HH40-10 : THE DIOCESAN TRUSTEES FOR THE DIOCESE OF HARARE vs THE CHURCH OF THE PROVINCE OF CENTRAL AFRICA and BISHOP CHAD GANDIA
Ruled By: BHUNU J

HH81-10 : MILRITE FARMING (PRIVATE ) LIMITED vs ENOCK PORUSINGAZI and THE MINISTER OF LANDS AND RURAL RESETTLEMENT and FOUR OTHERS
Ruled By: UCHENA J

HH98-10 : FIONA EVELYN TAISEKWA JIRIRA vs ZIMCOR TRUSTEES LIMITED and REGISTRAR OF DEEDS
Ruled By: MAKARAU JP

HH114-10 : IAN SPENCE GRAY and PRINCIPLE BASED SOLUTIONS P/L vs THE REGISTRAR OF DEEDS
Ruled By: GOWORA J

HH114-10 : IAN SPENCE GRAY and PRINCIPLE BASED SOLUTIONS P/L vs THE REGISTRAR OF DEEDS
Ruled By: GOWORA J

HH116-10 : DEBORAH GLORIA KOUMIDES vs PAUL KOUMIDES
Ruled By: MAVANGIRA J

HH118-10 : JOHN STRONG (PRIVATE) LIMITED and TOBS STRONG (PRIVATE) LIMITED vs WILLIAM WACHENUKA and MINISISTRY OF LANDS, AGRICULTURE AND RESETTLEMENT
Ruled By: GOWORA J

HH153-10 : ACHIBOLD NDIDZANO vs PAULINE GONDORA and HOPEMORE ARUFANDIKA and HARDWORK MUTYENYOKA and SIX OTHERS
Ruled By: HUNGWE J

HH157-10 : ISAU MUGUGU vs POLICE SERVICE COMMISSION and COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
Ruled By: GOWORA J

HH163-10 : BISSY BEE (PVT) LTD vs GRAIN MARKETING BOARD and BRUKMARK MICROFINANCE (PVT) LTD and DEPUTY SHERIFF-CHITUNGWIZA
Ruled By: MUSAKWA J

HH176-10 : JOYCE CHAGADURA vs SHELLY ANTONIO and REGIS MUVEREGI and DIRECTOR OF HOUSING CITY OF HARARE and SHERIFF OF THE HIGH COURT
Ruled By: GUVAVA J

HH190-10 : NGONI MUDEKUNYE and GLADYS CHAMUTSA and MASIMBA MUDEKUNYE and TAMBURIKA MUDEKUNYE vs AARON EVANS MUDEKUNYE and BERTHA MUDEKUNYE and DEPUTY SHERIFF CHIPINGE N.O.
Ruled By: BERE J

HH191-10 : SHEPHERD MURAHWI and DEBORAH MURAHWI and PETER SIGAUKE and OTHERS vs MS MAGWENZI and ARROSUM CONSTRUCTION (PVT) LTD and DIVINE HOMES (PVT) LTD and NICANOR ENTERPRISES (PVT) LTD
Ruled By: BERE J

HH192-10 : AEPROMM RESOURCES (PVT) LTD vs SAMUEL MAZOWE and PATTERSON TIMBA and STEVENSON TIMBA and MAGGIE DITIMA and TONDESAI KAPONDO
Ruled By: MTSHIYA J

HH139-10 : COLLIN JIMU vs LIFESAVER INVESTMENTS (PRIVATE) LIMITED and DEPUTY SHERIFF
Ruled By: HUNGWE J

HH135-10 : TREVOR GIFFORD vs I. MUGOMBA and MUYESU and RONALD MUCHENGA and COMMISSIONER GENERAL OF POLICE
Ruled By: CHIWESHE JP

HH199-10 : Z. MEREKI vs FORRESTER ESTATE (PVT) LTD
Ruled By: MAKONI J

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

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

HH208-10 : MIKE CHIVHANGANYE and OLIVIA CHIVHANGANYE vs OACRIDGE PROPERTIES (PVT) LTD and THE HONOURABLE MAGISTRATE CHIBANDA (N.O.)
Ruled By: MUTEMA J

HH234-10 : RODGERS MADANGURE vs SHATO LUFEYI and DAYNDALE ENTERPRISES (PRIVATE) LIMITED and MUGEJO MAKONI
Ruled By: GOWORA J

HH246-10 : IN RE PARSHOTAM and IN RE CHIBVEMBE and IN RE CHIDZIKWE vs x
Ruled By: PATEL J and GUVAVA J

Appealed
HHH262-10 : ZIMBABWE POSTS (PVT) LTD vs COMMUNICATION AND ALLIED SERVICES WORKERS UNION OF ZIMBABWE
Ruled By: MUTEMA J