Law Portal
Zimbabwe

Welcome To Law Portal

Welcome, Guest!
[Help?]

Title to Land, Rights to Minerals, Powers of Repossession, Imposition of Taxes and Impounding

HH71-09 : AGRO CHEM DEALERS (PVT) LTD vs STANLEY GOMO and CITY OF HARARE and RONALD AJARA and THE REGISTRAR OF DEEDS
Ruled By: GOWORA J

In 1995, the applicant (Agro Chem) purchased an undeveloped Stand (the Stand) from the second respondent (City of Harare). The full purchase price was paid. In terms of the agreement, Agro Chem was enjoined to undertake certain minimum developments on the Stand within a stipulated period after the purchase. It is common cause that no development has ...
More

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

In Hundah v Murauro 1993 (2) ZLR 403 (S)…, the court alluded to the fact that:“Land in the high density suburbs belonged to the local authorities, or, occasionally, to central government. Occupants of the houses built in these suburbs fall into three categories (ignoring the 4th category of lodgers or ...
More

HH37-11 : STANSILOUS K MTIZIRA vs EPWORTH LOCAL BOARD and MAPANZURE and ELPHAS UTETE and ZACHARIOUS GODI
Ruled By: CHATUKUTA J

The applicant filed an urgent chamber application and sought the following relief:“TERMS OF FINAL ORDER SOUGHT1. That the reallocation of Stand number 32, Muguta Shopping Centre, Epworth to the second, third, fourth respondent or any other person be and is hereby reversed.2. That the first respondent is ordered to expedite the process of approving the applicant's ...
More

HH140-11 : 59 BENEFICIARIES OF VALLEY LANE HOUSING SCHEME vs HARARE MUNICIPAL WORKERS UNION and CITY OF HARARE and OTHERS
Ruled By: MTSHIYA J

On 8 March 2011, I dismissed this application on the ground that it was not properly before the court. The legal practitioners for the second to fifth respondents has since written requesting for reasons for my ruling. These are they: On 8 September 2010, the applicants (i.e. 59 Beneficiaries of Valley Lane Housing Scheme) filed an ...
More

HB61-13 : TIMOTHY NKOMO vs CITY OF BULAWAYO and FRONT HUNK MARKETING (PVT) LTD
Ruled By: CHEDA AJ

The applicant applied for, and was allocated, an industrial Stand by the respondent on 27 January 2011. The Stand was Number 15357, Kelvin North, Bulawayo. The respondent spelt out the terms and conditions attaching to the allocation of the Stand. The relevant conditions can be summarized as follows: 1. The purchase price was $85,000= (eighty five thousand ...
More

HH102-15 : ZIMBABWE ELECTRICITY TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION COMPANY (PVT) LTD vs BINDURA RURAL DISTRICT COUNCIL and FIFTY NINE OTHERS
Ruled By: DUBE J

This is an application for a declaratory order. The applicant is ZETDC Company (Pvt) Ltd, a corporate body whose mandate is the transmission of electricity in Zimbabwe. The respondents are the sixty (60) Rural District Councils dotted across Zimbabwe. The applicant is in the business of transmission and distribution of electricity services. The applicant has various transmission lines that cut across ...
More

HH141-15 : GOODWELL CHIPURIRO vs CITY OF HARARE
Ruled By: UCHENA J

The applicant filed an urgent application seeking an order to compel the City of Harare to release his motor vehicle it impounded on 12 January 2015. The applicant filed his application on 28 January 2015….,. The respondent disputes the applicant's allegation that his motor vehicle was impounded by Epah Muguti an alleged bogus police officer.
More

HH103-09 : U-TOW TRAILERS (PRIVATE) LTD vs CITY OF HARARE and SUPERLUX (PRIVATE) LIMITED
Ruled By: MAKARAU JP

The brief background facts to this matter are largely common cause. I set them out as follows:In 1994, the applicant entered into a lease agreement with the first respondent in respect of certain premises situate at Number 9 Market Street, Eastlea, Harare (“the premises”).The lease agreement was constantly renewed over ...
More

SC17-18 : CBZ BANK LIMITED vs DAVID MOYO and DEPUTY SHERIFF HARARE
Ruled By: PATEL JA, MAVANGIRA JA and UCHENA JA

I must note the distinction between the sale of property and the cession of rights to property from one person to another.McNALLY JA in Gomba v Makwarimba 1992 (2) ZLR 26 (S)..., said:“As so often happens, the parties have used the word 'sale' to describe what is in reality a ...
More

HH02-22 : LIVISON CHIKUTU and PHENEAS CHITSANGE and ALBERT DHUMELA vs MINISTER OF LANDS, AGRICULTURE, WATER, CLIMATE & RURAL RESETTLEMENT and OTHERS
Ruled By: MAFUSIRE J

This is a constitutional application.The applicants want section 4 and section 6(1)(b) of the Communal Land Act [Chapter 20:04] declared ultra vires the Constitution of Zimbabwe.The draft order does not identify which particular sections of the Constitution the impugned provisions allegedly conflict with; but, according to the founding affidavit, the ...
More

HMA18-19 : BRIAN GAVA vs CHAMISA MAWERE and CHAMPION CHAKANETSA (as Executor of Estate Late Claudio Chakanetsa) and MISHECK MIZEKE and MESSENGER OF COURT – GWERU and CITY OF GWERU and REGISTRAR OF DEEDS – BULAWAYO N.O.
Ruled By: MAFUSIRE J

The property situate, Stand 2468 Mkoba 7 Township in Gweru (“the property”) was at all relevant times owned by the fifth respondent, Gweru City Council.However, one Honest Pepolo was apparently buying it from Gweru City Council in terms of one of those standard term lease to buy agreements.Apparently, in June ...
More

HMA21-19 : MR MBOZVI vs CHENGETAI SIDHUNA
Ruled By: MAWADZE J and MAFUSIRE J

The dispute between the parties centred on a property described as Stand 238 Phase 1 Checheche (“the property”). It is one of those council-owned township properties that local authorities sell on a rent-to-buy basis. It is under the Chipinge Rural District Council.In the court a quo, the respondent (“Chengetai”) sued ...
More

HH420-15 : BRIGHTON MBERI vs SAVIOUS MBEWE and NORTON TOWN COUNCIL
Ruled By: MAFUSIRE J

In his application, the applicant said his claim was for “specific performance” against the second respondent. This was in respect of an immovable property, a house in one of the high density suburbs administered by the second respondent.At the end of the hearing I dismissed the application with costs and ...
More

Back Main menu

Categories