Cause of Action and Draft Orders re: Appearance to Defend iro Effect of Non-Appearance

HH13-15 : MICHAEL BASIKITI vs CHIVERO STANELY MDOKWANI and MINISTER OF LANDS AND RURAL RESETTLEMENT and DEPUTY SHERIFF, MARONDERA
Ruled By: NDEWERE J

The first respondent has applied for costs on a higher scale.The court has noted that when the applicant signed the affidavit of 28 January 2014, he undertook to vacate the farm by 15 April 2014, failing which the first respondent could evict him at his own (applicant's) costs. Given such ...

HH06-10 : HARLAND BROTHERS (PVT) LIMITED and RAYMOND FINAUGHTY vs THE MINISTER OF LANDS AND RURAL RESETTLEMENT and MRS WINNIE MUSHIPE
Ruled By: MUSAKWA J

The first respondent did not make any submissions on the merits of the application. Counsel for the first respondent indicated that they would abide by the decision of the court.

CC42-18 : NELSON CHAMISA vs EMMERSON DAMBUDZO MNANGAGWA and OTHERS
Ruled By: MALABA CJ, GWAUNZA DCJ, GARWE JCC, MAKARAU JCC, HLATSHWAYO JCC, PATEL JCC, BHUNU JCC, UCHENA JCC and MAKONI JCC

The sixth (Harry Peter Wilson) and eighteenth (Violet Mariyacha) respondents indicated that they would abide by the decision of the Court….,.

CC01-17 : FREDRICK MUTANDA vs THE PROSECUTOR GENERAL OF ZIMBABWE and THE ANTI-CORRUPTION COMMISSION OF ZIMBABWE and THE RESERVE BANK OF ZIMBABWE and THE REGIONAL MAGISTRATE, MR N. MUPEYIWA N.O.
Ruled By: CHIDYAUSIKU CJ, MALABA DCJ, ZIYAMBI JCC, GWAUNZA JCC, GARWE JCC, GOWORA JCC, HLATSHWAYO JCC, GUVAVA JCC and MAVANGIRA AJCC

A trial magistrate should not oppose an application such as this one. He or she should simply place before the court facts he or she believes will assist the court in arriving at a correct decision and undertake to abide by the decision of the court. Opposing an application such ...

HH180-15 : HERSEL INVESTMENTS (PVT) LTD vs THE REGISTRAR OF DEEDS N.O. and THE SHERIFF OF THE HIGH COURT and TREDCOR ZIMBABWE (PVT) LTD and ESTRELAC INVESTMENTS (PVT) LTD and ROSELYN MANDEBVU
Ruled By: TAGU J

During the hearing of the matter the first respondent was not represented. The fourth and the fifth respondents' representatives who were present elected not to say anything. The second respondent filed his report couched in the following words - “SHERIFF'S REPORT I have gone through the applicant's founding affidavit and have been sighted as the 2nd Respondent in my official ...

CC01-19 : ZIMBABWE LAW OFFICERS ASSOCIATION and DERECK CHARAMBA vs NATIONAL PROSECUTING AUTHORITY and PROSECUTOR GENERAL N.O. and MINISTER OF JUSTICE N.O. 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

The third, fourth and fifth respondents did not oppose the application.

View Appeal
HH385-13 : WEBSTER RUSHESHA (as legal guardian of Panashe Rushesha and Tivonge Rushesha) and RASAR INVESTMENTS (PVT) LTD vs ALEXIOUS DERA and ZIMCOR TRUSTEES LTD and FRANK BUYANGA and BOKA INVESTMENTS (PVT) LTD and MATTHEW BOKA and REGISTRAR OF DEEDS
Ruled By: ZHOU J

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.

CC07-19 : LEVI NYAGURA vs LANZANI NCUBE N.O. and THE PROSECUTOR-GENERAL OF ZIMBABWE and TAPIWA GODZI and MICHAEL CHAKANDIDA
Ruled By: MALABA CJ and UCHENA JCC and MAKONI JCC

The first respondent indicated that he was abiding by the decision of the Court.

HH281-16 : JOHANNES TOMANA vs JUDICIAL SERVICE COMMISSION and THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE, LEGAL AND PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS
Ruled By: MAKONI J

Since the respondents were not opposed to the order being sought by the applicant, I will not make an order for costs.

HH461-15 : PATTERSON TIMBA vs REGGIE SARUCHERA N.O. and RESERVES BANK OF ZIMBABWE and NATIONAL SOCIAL SECURITY AUTHORITY and RENNAISSANCE FINANCIAL HOLDINGS LTD and RENAISSANCE MERCHANT BANK LTD
Ruled By: MAKONI J

The second respondent indicated that it will abide by the decision of the court.

Appealed
CC13-19 : VENGESAI CHIRASHA vs NATIONAL FOODS LIMITED and ANTI-CORRUPTION COMMISSION and JUDICIAL SERVICE COMMISSION
Ruled By: MALABA CJ and PATEL JCC and GUVAVA JCC

No opposing papers were filed on behalf of the respondents.

CC21-19 : NELSON CHAMISA vs EMMERSON DAMBUDZO MNANGAGWA and OTHERS
Ruled By: MALABA CJ, GWAUNZA DCJ, GARWE JCC, MAKARAU JCC, HLATSHWAYO JCC, PATEL JCC, BHUNU JCC, UCHENA JCC and MAKONI JCC

The sixth (Harry Peter Wilson) and the eighteenth (Violet Mariyacha) respondents indicated that they would abide by the decision of the Court.

HH475-18 : ETHEL TSITSI MPEZENI vs ZIMBABWE ELECTORAL COMMISSION and OTHERS
Ruled By: ZHOU J

The first and second respondents elected to abide by the decision of this court.

Appealed
SC14-19 : JUDITH ISHEMUNYORO (NEE MANDIDEWA) vs ANTHONY ISHEMUNYORO and TYNSERVE DISTRIBUTORS (PVT) LTD and THE REGISTRAR OF DEEDS and THE SHERIFF FOR ZIMBABWE
Ruled By: GWAUNZA JA, HLATSHWAYO JA and ZIYAMBI AJA

The first respondent did not file any opposing papers.

View Appeal
HH348-17 : JUDITH ISHEMUNYORO (nee MANDIDEWA) vs ANTONY ISHEMUNYORO and TYNSERVE DISTRIBUTORS (PVT) LTD and THE REGISTRAR OF DEEDS and THE SHERIFF FOR ZIMBABWE
Ruled By: MUNANGATI-MANONGWA J

The first respondent, the applicant's husband, has not opposed the application.

HMA36-18 : AMALGAMATED RURAL TEACHERS UNION OF ZIMBABWE vs OBERT MASARAURE and ZIMBABWE AFRICAN NATIONAL UNION [PATRIOTIC FRONT] and MINISTER OF PRIMARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION
Ruled By: MAFUSIRE J

The second respondent did not oppose the application. He promised to abide by the decision of the court.

HH160-09 : SMART GONONDO vs ALICE MUTEPFA and PORTIA NYAMAROPA and CITY OF MUTARE (DIRECTOR OF HOUSING)
Ruled By: MAVANGIRA J

The second respondent, despite being served with the court application, has filed no opposing papers….,. The second respondent has chosen not to contest or oppose the application. There is thus no dispute to the applicant's contention that the second respondent is not a bona fide purchaser.

HMA37-18 : AMALGAMATED RURAL TEACHERS UNION OF ZIMBABWE [2] and OBERT MASARAURE vs ZIMBABWE AFRICAN NATIONAL UNION [PATRIOTIC FRONT] and MINISTER OF PRIMARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION
Ruled By: MAFUSIRE J

Just as in the original application, the second respondent does not oppose the application and he seeks to abide by the decision of the court.

HH517-15 : CHEN WANG vs JOSEPH MANDIZHA and TAWANDA MAVHUNGA and TAFADZWA MAVHUNGA and DARNEL ENTERPRISES (PRIVATE) LIMITED
Ruled By: MUREMBA J

It is only the first and the fourth respondents who opposed this application. The second and third respondents did not file any opposing papers.

HH208-15 : GOOD LIVING REAL ESTATE PL vs ADAM AND COMPANY PL and SGI PROPERTIES PL and HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMITH
Ruled By: MUREMBA J

The applicant filed this urgent application for the purposes of having the arbitration hearing scheduled for the 16th of February 2015 stayed...,.The third respondent, who is a retired judge of this court, who was a self-actor, had not prepared any written response to the application. He made submissions that as ...

HH223-15 : ZIMBABWE SUGAR MILLING INDUSTRY WORKERS UNION (ZSMIWU) vs ALFRED MAKWARIMBA and KENNIAS SHAMUYARIRA and ELIAS MADZIVA and FREEDOM MUDUNGWE and OTHERS
Ruled By: MANGOTA J

The first, second, third and fourth respondents opposed the application and so did the seventh respondent. The fifth and sixth respondents did nothing about the application. They remained uncommitted to the matter notwithstanding the fact that they were served with the application.The Sheriff's returns of service showed that both respondents ...

HH228-15 : HERBERT MUDZVOVA vs ROBERT MUDZVOVA and THE REGISTRAR OF DEEDS
Ruled By: MATHONSI J

The first respondent was served with the Notice of Set Down but chose not to appear.

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 first and the second respondents opposed the application. The third did not. My assumption is that he chose to abide by the decision of the court.

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 ...

View Appeal
HH69-16 : PENELOPE CHIGWADA vs GERALD CHIGWADA and SHEPHERD KUSADA [N.O.] and MASTER OF THE HIGH COURT [N.O.]
Ruled By: NDEWERE J

The second and third defendants did not defend the action.

SC103-20 : VERITAS and FIRINNE TRUST ALSO KNOWN AS VERITAS vs ZIMBABWE ELECTORAL COMMISSION and MINISTER OF JUSTICE, LEGAL AND PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ZIMBABWE
Ruled By: GOWORA JA, GUVAVA JA and BHUNU JA

Counsel for the Minister and the Attorney-General indicated that he would abide by the decision of the court.

HH495-16 : TETRAD HOLDINGS LTD vs MASTER OF THE HIGH COURT, HARARE and THE FORMER PROVISIONAL JUDICIAL MANAGER OF TETRAD INVESTMENTS BANK LTD – W. MILITALA and DEPOSIT PROTECTION CORPORATION
Ruled By: MANGOTA J

The first respondent did not oppose the application. It, however, made comments on the applicant's grounds for review. These form part of the record.

SC108-20 : SPENCER TSHUMA vs KEVIN MAGWAZA and SEBASTIN MAGODO and MINISTER OF MINES N.O. and HONOURABLE KUBONERA N.O. and PROVINCIAL MINING DIRECTOR, MASH WEST N.O. and SHERIFF FOR ZIMBABWE N.O.
Ruled By: UCHENA JA

Counsel for the third and fifth respondents submitted that the third and fifth respondents will abide by the decision of the court.

View Appeal
HH139-18 : MARIA SITHOLE vs MATHIAS SITHOLE and CECK ENTERPRISES PL and B.R.M HOVE and PETER DZIMBA and MANNERS JARAVAZA and PARDON CHAKANYUKA and REGISTRAR OF DEEDS
Ruled By: DUBE J

The seventh respondent (Registrar of Deeds) is cited in his official capacity and did not oppose the application.

HH135-16 : FRANCIS NYADINDU and SHILLAH NYADINDU vs BARCLAYS BANK OF ZIMBABWE LTD and SHERIFF OF THE HIGH COURT (N.O.) and REGISTRAR OF DEEDS (N.O.) and SOLID REAL ESTATE
Ruled By: DUBE J

A judgment debtor or any person who has an interest in a sale is entitled to bring objections challenging the conduct of a judicial sale by the Sheriff in terms of Rule 359(1).Objections may be taken on all process leading to the sale and are not limited to the actual ...

View Appeal
HH145-17 : GERTRUDE MUTASA and DIDYMUS MUTASA vs NYAKUTOMBWA & MUGABE LEGAL COUNSEL and SHERIFF OF THE HIGH COURT
Ruled By: TSANGA J

The Sheriff herein is cited as the second respondent in his official capacity and will abide by any decision of this court in the matter.

HH390-18 : MIDLANDS STATE UNIVERSITY vs ALOIS MATONGO
Ruled By: MUZOFA J

The applicant seeks an order for perpetual silence against the respondent.

The order sought is, in the alternative, as follows:-

“1. The respondent be and is hereby ordered to maintain perpetual silence against the applicant, that is to say, the respondent be and is hereby barred and interdicted from instituting any litigation, claim, application, action against the applicant.

2. An order that respondent pays applicant's legal costs on an attorney and client scale; or that

3. The respondent be and is hereby ordered not to commence any litigation, claim, application, action against the respondent without first obtaining leave of this Honourable Court (which this Honourable Court, depending on the facts, will either decline to grant, or will grant subject to precedent (sic) terms and conditions which this Honourable Court, may, in its discretion, stipulate).

4. An order that the respondent pays applicant's legal costs on an attorney and client scale.”

The respondent was employed by the applicant as the director of the Graduate School of Business Leadership at the Midlands State University. Following allegations of misconduct against the respondent he was suspended, charged, and, after a disciplinary hearing, he was dismissed. An internal appeal was unsuccessful.

According to the applicant, after the dismissal of his internal appeal, in 2011, there was no peace for the applicant. Between 2010 and 2017 the respondent filed a total of thirteen (13) applications, actions, and appeals before the Labour Court and the High Court. The applicant stated that although in most cases the respondent was unsuccessful and costs granted against him, it did not pursue the issue on costs as it was aware that the respondent had no means.

The application is opposed.

The respondent does not deny filing the applications or claims. He said they were all completed. Only one matter is still pending between the parties. His main contention is that in terms of section 86 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe he has a right to access justice and the courts of law for redress. Such an application is a negation of his constitutional right. In addition, it was submitted that this court cannot grant an order for perpetual silence regulating processes of other courts. It can only issue an order that relates to the abuse of its own process.

At the hearing of the matter, the applicant sought to amend its order.

After hearing both parties, I granted the application and indicated that the reasons will be incorporated in the judgment. These are they.

The notice to amend the draft order was filed on 6 March 2018 to read:

“1. The respondent be and is hereby ordered to maintain perpetual silence against the applicant, and is hereby barred and interdicted from instituting any litigation, claim, application, action, against the applicant, in any court or legal fear, in respect of the respondent's termination of employment, reinstatement of his appeal that was dismissed by the Labour Court, or purported claim of terminal benefits.

2. An order that respondent pays applicant's legal costs on an attorney and client scale.

Alternatively;

3. The respondent be and is hereby interdicted and restrained from instituting any action, application, or suit or proceedings in this Honourable Court, in the Labour Court, and in any other court, against the applicant or its employees, or its agents relating to the applicant or its agents, in respect of proceedings which relate directly or indirectly to the respondent's termination of employment, reinstatement of his appeal which was dismissed by the Labour Court, and purported terminal benefits due to the latter from the applicant, without leave of this Honourable Court first being applied for and obtained.

4. The respondent be and is hereby interdicted and restrained from setting down any matter already filed or commenced with this Honourable Court, the Labour Court, or any other Court subordinate to this Honourable Court, without leave of this Honourable Court first being applied for and obtained.

5. The Registrar of this Honourable Court, and the Registrar of the Labour Court, and the Registrar of any other Court subordinate to this Honourable Court shall not issue any process commencing any action or any application or set down any matter already filed or commenced by, on behalf of, or at the behest of, Mr Alois Matongo in connection with the termination of his employment, and the purported claim of terminal benefits or reinstatement of his appeal that was dismissed by the Labour Court, without the leave of this Honourable Court first being applied for and obtained.

6. Any application for leave to institute proceedings or set down any matter shall be made on notice to the applicant.

7. The respondent is to pay the costs of this application on the legal practitioner and client scale.”

The notice was served on the respondent's legal practitioners on 8 March 2018.

No notice of opposition was filed.

HH442-15 : DAVID WHITEHEAD TEXTILES LTD (represented by KNOWLEDGE HOFISI, in his capacity as Final Judicial Manager) vs JYOTSANAGEN KALA and LISTON CHAKUPA and MASTER OF THE HIGH COURT
Ruled By: MAFUSIRE J

In this application, one Knowledge Hofisi (“Hofisi”) was the final judicial manager of the applicant company, David Whitehead Textiles Limited, which was under final judicial management. The application was for an order that the applicant be joined as the second defendant in an action under the case reference number HC8549/13....,.The ...

HH128-09 : ROUTE TOUTE BV & OTHERS vs MINISTER OF NATIONAL SECURITY RESPONSIBLE FOR LAND LAND REFORM AND RESETTLEMENT & OTHERS
Ruled By: PATEL J

The 1st applicant in this matter is a business corporation registered in the Netherlands. The other three applicants are commercial farming entities registered in Zimbabwe. The applicants together, directly or indirectly, are the registered owners and leaseholders of Fangudu Farm (the farm). They claim the right to continue to own ...

SC01-10 : ZIMBABWE MINING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION and MINERALS MARKETING CORPORATION OF ZIMBABWE vs AFRICAN CONSOLIDATED RESOURCES PLC and OTHERS
Ruled By: CHIDYAUSIKU CJ

This is a Chamber application in which the applicants seek to set aside an order by HUNGWE J. The order sought to be set aside provides that the learned Judge's judgment will not be suspended by the noting of an appeal....,.The respondents did not file any opposing affidavits.

SC11-08 : DOCTOR DANIEL SHUMBA and ADVOCATE BRUCE CHIOTA vs THE ZIMBABWE ELECTORAL COMMISSION and MR MUSHANGWE N.O.
Ruled By: CHIDYAUSIKU CJ, SANDURA JA, ZIYAMBI JA, MALABA JA and GARWE JA

The applicants in this case allege that their right to freedom of association, guaranteed by sections 21(1) and 21(2) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe (“the Constitution”), and their right to protection of the law, guaranteed by section 18(1) of the Constitution, were violated by the second respondent, an employee of ...

CC04-18 : GABRIEL SHUMBA and SIBONILE MFUMISI and DARLINGTON NYAMBIYA vs MINISTER OF JUSTICE and CHAIRPERSON, ZIMBABWE ELECTORAL COMMISSION and ZIMBABWE ELECTORAL COMMISSION and OTHERS
Ruled By: GWAUNZA JCC, GARWE JCC, GOWORA JCC, HLATSHWAYO JCC, PATEL JCC, GUVAVA JCC, MAVANGIRA JCC, BHUNU JCC and UCHENA JCC

This is an application in terms of section 85(1)(a) of the Constitution and the background to the matter is as follows:-

The applicants are all citizens of, but are not resident in, Zimbabwe. They give different reasons for their absence, with the first applicant citing political reasons. The second applicant cites economic reasons, while the third applicant alleges his absence is premised on economic and political reasons.

The applicants state that they wish to participate in the country's harmonized general elections due later this year, 2018, but are precluded from doing so by certain sections of the relevant law. They accordingly seek the following relief:-

“IT IS DECLARED THAT:

1. The failure to afford voting facilities to the applicants and similarly placed Zimbabweans based abroad be and is hereby declared unconstitutional in that it violates applicants' rights as enshrined in section 67 and 56 of the Constitution.

ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT:

1. Section 23 of the Electoral Act [Chapter 2:13] be and is hereby declared constitutionally invalid as far as it excludes citizens not resident in Zimbabwe from registering as voters in contravention of section 67(3) as read with paragraph 2 of the 4th Schedule to the Constitution of Zimbabwe.

2. Section 72 of the Electoral Act [Chapter 2:13] is hereby declared constitutionally invalid as far as it excludes citizens of Zimbabwe who are not in Government service from exercising their right to vote in contravention of sections 56(1), 56(3), 56(4) and 67(3) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe.

3. The respondents are hereby ordered to put in place all appropriate measures to enable the applicants and any other Zimbabweans based abroad to participate in the 2018 Presidential, Parliamentary, and Local Authority elections as voters.”

As is evident from the draft relief sought, that, it is the applicants' case that sections 23 and 72 of the Electoral Act [Chapter 2:13] infringe their right to vote as enshrined in section 67(3) as read with paragraph 1(2) of the 4th Schedule to the Constitution.

It is also their argument that section 72 of the Electoral Act [Chapter 2:13] violates their rights in terms of section 56(1), (3) and (4) of the Constitution.

Section 67 of the Constitution deals with 'Political Rights' and its subsection (3) confers the right to vote on every Zimbabwean citizen of 18 years and above. Section 56 and the sub-sections cited relate to equality and non-discrimination.

The applicants argue that, in terms of section 67(3) of the Constitution, every citizen over the age of eighteen (18) years is entitled to vote regardless of where they reside or resident. In their opinion, the residency requirements set out in section 23(3) of the Electoral Act (“the Act”) should not, and cannot, negate the right of any Zimbabwean above the age of 18 years to vote.

Because the Electoral Act does not facilitate the registration and voting of Zimbabweans based abroad, the applicants contend that the result is a negation of section 67(3) as read with paragraph 1(2) of the 4th Schedule to the Constitution.

They further aver that sub-section 23(3) and section 72 of the Electoral Act are discriminatory for the reason that they restrict the right to vote only to persons physically in Zimbabwe, to the prejudice of absent voters. They contend that the benefit extended to a certain class of people, under section 72 of the Electoral Act, unjustly discriminates against them because they are not in Government service nor are they spouses of such civil servants.

The applicants, in addition, allege that denial of the diaspora vote is contrary to international law, that is, Article 13 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights, sections 4.1.1, 4.1.8 and 5.1.8 of the SADC Principles and Guidelines Governing Democratic Elections, and Article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Counsel for the applicants further argues that the right to vote, given under section 67(3) of the Constitution, does not depend on anything other than citizenship and age.

He also relied on section 155(1)(c) of the Constitution which he described as an 'executionary provision'. The contention in this regard is that all voters are equal, regardless of where a person is residing for a particular period.

Counsel for the applicants further contends that the right accorded in the Constitution cannot be attenuated by legislation, and that, in terms of section 35(3)(a) of the Constitution, the State is obliged to 'follow' its citizens wherever they are; this obligation not being informed by the location of the citizen but by the citizenship of the person.

In terms of section 67(3) of the Constitution as read with the 4th Schedule to the Constitution, it is further argued, everyone not disqualified from voting is entitled to vote. Citizens in the diaspora are not disqualified from voting. The 4th Schedule is different from its equivalent under the erstwhile Constitution and does not detract from sections 67, 35 and 155 of the Constitution.

He postulates that the according of a right to vote can only have meaning if it is given to a person who would otherwise not have voted. Once a citizen remains outside the constituency for the relevant period, there is no provision for the equitable use of discretion by the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission. Reference was made to the fact that South Africa, Mozambique, Senegal, Rwanda, Ghana, Kenya, Botswana, Namibia, India, United States of America, and Australia all grant their citizens in the diaspora the right to vote.

Finally, counsel for the applicants argues that there was no need to amend the Constitution but that the Government needed to amend its attitude.

The second (Chairperson, Zimbabwe Electoral Commission) and third (Zimbabwe Electoral Commission) respondents filed papers indicating that they would abide by the order of the Court.

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 premises pending the hearing of her application for the condonation of her late noting of an appeal against the decision of the magistrate on the strength of which the first respondent evicted her from the property.

The first respondent was the applicant's landlord for eleven (11) years. It sought and obtained an eviction order against the appellant. The order was enforced in the manner already explained above.

The second respondent is the Messenger of Court Harare. He is an officer of the Magistrate's Court entrusted with the responsibility of enforcing that court's orders.

The third respondent is the first respondent's new tenant with whom it entered into a lease agreement after this application had been issued and served on the first respondent. It has not yet taken occupation of the property in dispute.

The applicant was aware of the court's order for her eviction. She was then being represented by her erstwhile legal practitioners whom she instructed to appeal against the magistrate's decision. She, in her founding affidavit, said she was surprised when the Messenger of Court gave her notice and forthwith evicted her. She, on inquiring with her erstwhile legal practitioners, was advised that they had not filed the appeal as instructed as she had not paid them. She has since retrieved her file from them and instructed her current legal practitioners to note the appeal and file an application for condonation of the late noting of the appeal concurrently with this application.

The applicant's property was removed from the premises and is now stored outside her residential property and is exposed to the elements. She therefore filed this urgent application in which she seeks reinstatement mainly on the ground that her ejectment did not comply with Rule 4A(1) of Order 26 of the Magistrates Court Rules.

Counsel for the first respondent submitted that this application is not urgent because the applicant did not immediately act after her ejectment.

Counsel for the applicant submitted that she acted as soon as she could in the circumstances of this case.

She was surprised by the ejectment as she believed her erstwhile legal practitioners had attended to her appeal against the magistrate's decision, though she erroneously believed that the appeal would suspend the magistrate's decision. She was ejected without the requisite 48 hours notice. She had to retrieve her file from her erstwhile legal practitioners, and instruct her current legal practitioners. She had to do this in the circumstances she had been plunged into by the unprocedural eviction.

I am satisfied that the delay between 16 November 2011, when she was ejected, and her filing this urgent application, on 21 November 2011, has been adequately explained.

I am also satisfied her erstwhile legal practitioners failure to note the appeal, and the sudden unprocedural ejectment, justifies the hearing of the applicant's application on an urgent basis.

Her application is strengthened by her having been evicted without being given 48 hours notice.

Rule 4A(1) of Order 26 of the Magistrate's Court (1980) Rules, which provides for the notice, provides as follows;

“(1) Upon receiving —

(a) A warrant of execution against property; or

(b) A warrant of ejectment and execution against property; or

(c) A warrant of delivery and execution against property;
the Messenger shall, within twenty-four hours or as soon as circumstances permit, go to the house or place of business of the execution debtor and deliver to the debtor or leave at the house or place of business, a notice warning the debtor of the date of the proposed execution of the warrant, which date shall not be sooner than forty-eight hours after the notice was so delivered or left:

Provided that the Messenger need not deliver or leave such a notice in any case in which he has reasonable grounds for believing that immediate execution of the warrant is necessary in order to prevent the execution debtor from concealing or disposing of any property in order to avoid its attachment.”

The second respondent did not oppose this application, nor did he file any papers explaining why he executed without giving the requisite 48 hours notice.

Counsel for the first respondent submitted that the Messenger of Court's inadvertent failure to deliver or leave notice to the judgment debtor in terms of subrule (1) shall not invalidate the ejectment.

Counsel for the applicant submitted that the issue in this case is not on failure to deliver or leave the notice but giving inadequate notice contrary to subrule (1). Subrule (2), which the respondent's counsel relied on, provides as follows:

“(2) An inadvertent failure by the Messenger to deliver or leave a notice in terms of subrule (1) shall not invalidate any attachment, sale in execution, or ejectment effected in accordance with a warrant.”

The first respondent's submission cannot be accepted in view of the fact that there is no evidence that there was an inadvertent failure to deliver or leave the notice at the applicant's premises.

The applicant's case is in fact that she was given notice, but was evicted without being given 48 hours after that notice which would have given her time to take legal action against that notice. Her claim is that the second respondent acted unlawfully by not giving her 48 hours during which he should not have ejected her after the delivery of the notice.

That argument is supported by Rule 4A(1) of Order 26 which is couched in peremptory terms and provides exceptions which would justify failure to give 48 hours notice. The Rule requires the Messenger of Court to deliver notice “of the date of ejectment which date shall not be sooner than forty-eight hours after the notice was so delivered or left.”

The exceptions are provided in the proviso to subrule 4A(1) which deals with circumstances when a Messenger can justifiably not deliver or leave notice of ejectment or attachment.

The first respondent's opposing papers do not allege the existence of such circumstances.

The second respondent, who the proviso authorizes to make such a decision, did not file any papers to oppose this application nor did he file any papers supporting the first respondent's opposition of this application.

There is therefore no explanation before this court justifying the immediate ejectment of the applicant.

In the absence of such an explanation, I hold that the applicant was unlawfully ejected from the premises.

HH214-14 : TETRAD INVESTMENT BANK LIMITED vs BINDURA UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE EDUCATION and THE SHERIFF OF ZIMBABWE
Ruled By: TAGU J

The second respondent, who is the Sheriff of Zimbabwe, did not appear, meaning that he is prepared to be bound by the outcome of this case.

SC02-21 : EDDIES PFUGARI (PVT) LTD and EDWARD NYANYIWA vs KNOWE RESIDENTS AND RATEPAYERS ASSOCIATION and NORTON TOWN COUNCIL
Ruled By: PATEL JA, BHUNU JA and BERE JA

The second respondent is the Norton Town Council. It did not appear at the hearing of this appeal, having filed heads of argument indicating that it would abide by the decision of this Court.

HH424-13 : HONEY AND BLANCKENBERG vs LOURENCE ERASMUS VERMAAK and OTHERS
Ruled By: TSANGA J

The BackgroundThe applicant, Honey and Blanckenberg, instituted interpleader, in terms of Rule 30 of the High Court Rules, for the court to declare to whom it should pay an amount of $70,000 currently held in trust as rentals for certain companies.According to the applicant's affidavit, the companies in question are ...

Appealed
HH591-18 : CAINOS CHINGOMBE and TENDAI KWENDA vs CITY OF HARARE and MINISTER OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT, PUBLIC WORKS AND NATIONAL HOUSING and HOSEA CHISANGO N.O. and GEORGE MAKINGS N.O. and CHENAI GUMIRO N.O.
Ruled By: MATHONSI J

The first respondent is a municipal authority constituted in terms of the Urban Council Act and charged with the responsibility of running the affairs of the capital city, Harare. It has been cited herein along with the second respondent, the Minister under whose portfolio the municipality falls as well as ...

HH11-09 : THE MASTER OF THE HIGH COURT vs SITHANDIZILE DHLAMINI MOYO (as executor dative of Estate Late Willas Moyo) and GERTRUDE MOYO and SITHEMBISO KUSODZA
Ruled By: GUVAVA J

The second and third respondents did not file opposing papers in this matter, and I assume decided to abide by whatever decision is made by the court.

SC20-21 : TIMOTHY MUYAMBO vs HORTBAC PL t/a LITTLE FLOWER ENTERPRISES and JAMES CHIYANGWA and RONALD KITULI and TENDAI BONGA and MINISTER OF LANDS, AGRICULTURE AND RURAL RESETTLEMENT
Ruled By: CHITAKUNYE AJA

This is an application for joinder wherein the applicant seeks to be joined in two appeals pending before this Court, that is, SC304/20 and SC326/20.

The facts leading to this application may be summarised as follows:

The applicant was a holder of an offer letter in respect of Plot 4 of Glebe Farm, Goromonzi. The second, third, and fourth respondents were also holders of offer letters in respect of separate plots on the same farm. The fifth respondent is the authority which issued the offer letters to the applicant and the second, third, and fourth respondents.

The first respondent, on the other hand, claimed title to the farm in question.

Sometime in 2015, the first respondent approached the High Court at Harare in HC7006/15 seeking the setting aside of the applicant's offer letter and declaring such offer letter null and void. It also sought that the fifth respondent issue an offer letter in favour of the first respondent.

The applicant was cited, together with the fifth respondent, as respondents.

On 25 October 2016, the High Court granted an order setting aside and declaring null and void the offer letter issued to the applicant by the fifth respondent. The fifth respondent was ordered to issue an offer letter to the first respondent in respect of the said piece of land.

It is pertinent to note that whilst it was alleged that the order was granted in default of the fifth respondent, it was apparent that the applicant was represented by a legal practitioner in those proceedings.

After the issuance of the order on 25 October 2016, in the presence of the applicant's legal practitioner, no challenge was raised against that order till February 2018 when the fifth respondent belatedly applied for rescission of the default judgment granted against it.

Upon realising that it was out of time, the fifth respondent sought the court's indulgence through an application for condonation for late filing of an application for rescission which application was granted on 16 October 2019.

The fifth respondent's application for rescission was thereafter set down for 14 November 2019.

On that date, the matter was apparently postponed to 28 November 2019. On 28 November, the matter was removed from the roll.

The applicant alleged that the removal from the roll was to await the determination of a matter at Masvingo High Court, HC380/18, involving the first respondent, on the one hand, and the second, third, fourth, and fifth respondents on the other hand, which pertained to the second to fourth respondents' offer letters for Plots at Glebe Farm.

To buttress this point, the applicant tendered a Notice of Set Down for 14 November 2019 and a letter from the Registrar of the High Court.

The two documents did not, however, state the reason for the removal from the roll.

In fact, the Registrar's letter was simply a reminder to the Civil Division of the Attorney General's Office, as the fifth respondent's legal practitioners, that failure to set down the matter removed from the roll within three (3) months would lead to the matter being deemed abandoned in terms of paragraph 10 of Practice Direction 3/13.

As fate would have it, the application at Masvingo High Court did not go in the second to fifth respondents' favour.

The second to fourth respondents noted an appeal to this Court in SC304/20. The fifth respondent also noted an appeal in SC326/20.

The two appeals are in respect of the same judgment.

In September 2020, the Registrar wrote to the appellants inviting them to file their heads of arguments within 15 days.

It was only after the above invitation to the appellants to file their heads of arguments, that, on 25 September 2020, the applicant filed this application seeking to be joined in the two appeals as third respondent in SC304/20 and as fifth respondent in SC326/20 and that he be allowed to file his heads of arguments within 10 days of such order.

In this application, the applicant alleged that he has a direct and substantial interest in the matter as he is a holder of an offer letter for a plot at Glebe Farm. He averred that if he is not joined he may be prejudiced as he would not have been heard yet his rights and interest will be affected by the decision of this Court.

The first respondent opposed the application.

It contended that the application is improper as the applicant no longer has any such interests to protect. The decision in HC380/18 against which the second to fifth respondents have appealed does not relate to the subdivision or Plot that the applicant had been offered as that was determined on 25 October 2016 in HC7006/15 and the applicant has not challenged that determination to date.

The first respondent further contended, that, from the applicant's own averment he has always been aware about the Masvingo HC380/18 matter but had not sought to be joined in that matter only to seek such joinder at the appeal stage.

Counsel for second to fourth respondents indicated that they were willing to comply with any order granted by the court.

The fifth respondent, in its response, indicated that it had no objections to the joinder.

HH842-19 : BARIADIE INVESTMENTS (PVT) LTD vs PUWAYI CHIUTSI and TENDAI MASHAMHANDA and REGISTRAR OF DEEDS and SHERIFF OF THE HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE N.O. and ELLIOT ROGERS
Ruled By: CHITAPI J

Form 29, referred to in Rule 230, on application procedure, calls upon the respondents to oppose the relief sought by the applicant if they wish to do so. This implies that the respondent can also consent to the application expressly by stating so or not file any papers in which ...

SC25-22 : ELLIOT RODGERS vs PUWAYI CHIUTSI and TENDAYI MASHAMHANDA and REGISTRAR OF DEEDS and SHERIFF OF ZIMBABWE and BARIADE INVESTMENTS PL and LAW SOCIETY OF ZIMBABWE
Ruled By: GWAUNZA DCJ, GUVAVA JA and BHUNU JA

This is an appeal against the whole judgment of the High Court handed down on 14 March 2019, in which the court a quo dismissed the appellant's application for interim relief. The appeal was heard together with that in SC09/20 which involved the same parties, centered around the same dispute ...

View Appeal
HMA28-20 : TRIANGLE LIMITED and HIPPO VALLEY ESTATES vs ZIMBABWE REVENUE AUTHORITY and OTHERS
Ruled By: ZISENGWE J

The parties in this application are embroiled in a bitter dispute over the implications of their failure to specifically include Value Added Tax (abbreviated herein as “VAT”) matters in agreements for the milling of sugarcane.

The applicants are both companies duly incorporated in terms of the laws of Zimbabwe whose names over the years have become synonymous with sugar and sugar cane production in Zimbabwe. They grow, source, and mill sugar-cane and market its products. They carry on this agro-based business in and around the Lowveld towns of Triangle and Chiredzi.

The first respondent is the Zimbabwe Revenue Authority (ZIMRA): a statutory body whose chief mandate is to assess, collect, and enforce the payment of all revenues on behalf of the State. It is established in terms of the Revenue Authority Act [Chapter 23:11].

Save for the 10th (Farai Dumo Augustine Musikavanhu) and 11th (Roy Bhila), the rest of the respondents are organisations representing the interests of sugarcane farmers in the Lowveld (Zimbabwe Sugar Cane Development Association, Zimbabwe Cane Farmers Association, Mkwasine Sugar Cane Farmers Trust, Commercial Sugar Cane Farmers Association of Zimbabwe, Hippo Valley Productive Farmers Association, Zimbabwe Sugar Cane Development Association Royal Trust, Chipiwa Mpapa Mill Group and Chiredzi Productive Cane Growers Association).

The 10th (Farai Dumo Augustine Musikavanhu) and 11th (Roy Bhila) respondents are individual sugar cane farmers....,.

The third (Zimbabwe Cane Farmers Association) and fourth (Mkwasine Sugar Cane Farmers Trust) respondents did not ultimately participate in the proceedings on account of the fact that the former did not file any opposing papers and the latter filed its heads of argument outside the prescribed time and was therefore barred.

In a similar vein, there was no appearance by or on behalf of the sixth (Hippo Valley Productive Farmers Association), ninth (Chiredzi Productive Cane Growers Association) and eleventh (Roy Bhila) respondents on the day of the hearing.

Effectively, therefore, only the positions of the first (Zimbabwe Revenue Authority), second (Zimbabwe Sugar Cane Development Association), fifth (Commercial Sugar Cane Farmers Association of Zimbabwe), seventh (Zimbabwe Sugar Cane Development Association Royal Trust), eighth (Chipiwa Mpapa Mill Group), and tenth (Farai Dumo Augustine Musikavanhu) respondents were before the court.

SC100-21 : PARKHAM ENTERPRISES (PVT) LTD and NYASHA MOTSI vs ADHESIVE PRODUCTS MANUFACTURES (PVT) LTD and THE MASTER OF THE HIGH COURT N.O.
Ruled By: CHITAKUNYE JA

This is an opposed chamber application for reinstatement of an appeal in terms of Rule 70(2) of the Supreme Court Rules 2018.The intended appeal is against the whole judgment of the High Court sitting at Bulawayo, handed down on 17 December 2020 in case number HC1314/20 judgment number HB12-21.THE FACTSOn ...

SC115-21 : ANDREW CHIGOVERA vs MINISTER OF ENERGY AND POWER DEVELOPMENT and ZIMBABWE ELECTRICITY TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION COMPANY (ZETDC)
Ruled By: GUVAVA JA, MAVANGIRA JA and KUDYA AJA

This is an appeal against the whole judgment of the High Court Harare, dated 25 July 2019. The court a quo dismissed with costs the application for a declaratory order that had been filed by the appellant.THE FACTSThe appellant is the owner of an immovable property situated in Mabelreign, Harare. ...

THE FACTS

The appellant is the owner of an immovable property situated in Mabelreign, Harare. He leased the property to one Crossland Mupfurutsa between June 2013 and August 2017.

The tenant concluded an agreement for the supply of electricity with the Zimbabwe Electricity Transmission and Distribution Company (ZETDC or the second respondent). The second respondent duly opened an account for the supply of electricity in the name of the tenant. All the supply and payment transactions were recorded in this account.

The tenant abandoned the immovable property in August 2017. He left an unpaid electricity bill of $4,689=89.

In September 2018, the second respondent installed a prepaid meter in the name of the appellant on the property.

Acting in terms of section 3(1) of the Electricity (Unpaid Bills, Prepayment Meters and Smart Meters) Regulations, SI44A of 2013, which was promulgated in terms of section 65 of the Electricity Act [Chapter 13:19] (the enabling Act), the second respondent unilaterally transferred the debt incurred by the tenant to the appellant.

The debt was to be liquidated by the unilateral debit of at least 50% of the prepaid electricity purchases made by the appellant.

On 1 June 2019, S.I.44A of 2013 was repealed by section 12 of SI85 of 2018.

Subsequent to the repeal, the appellant approached the High Court, on 3 September 2019, seeking two declaratory orders:

(i) The first was that section 3 of the Electricity (Unpaid Bills, Prepayment Meters and Smart Meters) Regulations, SI44A of 2013 be declared ultra vires the Electricity Act [Chapter 13:19] (the enabling Act) and therefore a nullity.

(ii) The second declaratory order was predicated on the first. The appellant sought that the transfer of the debt to him be declared unlawful and that the second respondent be ordered to stop the ongoing deductions from his periodic prepaid electricity purchases.

The application was opposed by the second respondent and not by the first respondent (the Minister of Energy and Power Development).

When he filed his application, the appellant was not aware that the enactment he sought to impugn had been repealed.

This is apparent from the manner in which he asserted his cause of action in his founding affidavit. The tenor of his averments tended to suggest that the impugned enactment was still extant.

The second respondent was equally oblivious to this fact, otherwise it would have raised it in its opposing affidavit.

That the enactment had been repealed was only disclosed by the appellant in his answering affidavit. He, however, with this belated knowledge, elected to proceed with the application in its original form.

The first respondent did not file opposing papers or seek an upliftment of the automatic bar. His legal practitioner appeared in the court a quo, where he was, however, granted a watching brief....,.

Counsel for the first respondent appeared before us. Apparently, the first respondent was served with the notice of set down by the Registrar and subsequently timeously filed his heads of argument.

We indulged him.

He contended, that, the relief sought by the appellant, after the repeal of the enactment, was an academic exercise. That, the retrospective declaration of invalidity of the repealed enactment was moot as the issue was no longer alive.

It was his further contention, that, the appeal constituted a classic search for a legal opinion on an abstract or academic issue that did not have any practical relevance to the parties.

View Appeal
HH85-21 : JULIET KADUNGURE and ANDERSON KADUNGURE and NERIA KADUNGURE vs PATRICIA DARANGWA and MASTER OF THE HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE (N.O.)
Ruled By: CHIRAWU-MUGOMBA J

This matter was placed before me as an urgent chamber application having been filed on the 23rd of February 2021. Upon receipt, I gave directions for the filing of notices of opposition and opposing affidavits as well as heads of argument.The second respondent did not file a notice of opposition, ...

prev 1 2 3 next

Back Main menu

Law Portal Zimbabwe

Cause of Action and Draft Orders re: Appearance to Defend iro Effect of Non-Appearance

HH13-15 : MICHAEL BASIKITI vs CHIVERO STANELY MDOKWANI and MINISTER OF LANDS AND RURAL RESETTLEMENT and DEPUTY SHERIFF, MARONDERA Ruled By: NDEWERE J

HH06-10 : HARLAND BROTHERS (PVT) LIMITED and RAYMOND FINAUGHTY vs THE MINISTER OF LANDS AND RURAL RESETTLEMENT and MRS WINNIE MUSHIPE Ruled By: MUSAKWA J

CC42-18 : NELSON CHAMISA vs EMMERSON DAMBUDZO MNANGAGWA and OTHERS Ruled By: MALABA CJ, GWAUNZA DCJ, GARWE JCC, MAKARAU JCC, HLATSHWAYO JCC, PATEL JCC, BHUNU JCC, UCHENA JCC and MAKONI JCC

HH180-15 : HERSEL INVESTMENTS (PVT) LTD vs THE REGISTRAR OF DEEDS N.O. and THE SHERIFF OF THE HIGH COURT and TREDCOR ZIMBABWE (PVT) LTD and ESTRELAC INVESTMENTS (PVT) LTD and ROSELYN MANDEBVU Ruled By: TAGU J

View Appeal HH385-13 : WEBSTER RUSHESHA (as legal guardian of Panashe Rushesha and Tivonge Rushesha) and RASAR INVESTMENTS (PVT) LTD vs ALEXIOUS DERA and ZIMCOR TRUSTEES LTD and FRANK BUYANGA and BOKA INVESTMENTS (PVT) LTD and MATTHEW BOKA and REGISTRAR OF DEEDS Ruled By: ZHOU J

CC07-19 : LEVI NYAGURA vs LANZANI NCUBE N.O. and THE PROSECUTOR-GENERAL OF ZIMBABWE and TAPIWA GODZI and MICHAEL CHAKANDIDA Ruled By: MALABA CJ and UCHENA JCC and MAKONI JCC

HH281-16 : JOHANNES TOMANA vs JUDICIAL SERVICE COMMISSION and THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE, LEGAL AND PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS Ruled By: MAKONI J

HH461-15 : PATTERSON TIMBA vs REGGIE SARUCHERA N.O. and RESERVES BANK OF ZIMBABWE and NATIONAL SOCIAL SECURITY AUTHORITY and RENNAISSANCE FINANCIAL HOLDINGS LTD and RENAISSANCE MERCHANT BANK LTD Ruled By: MAKONI J

Appealed CC13-19 : VENGESAI CHIRASHA vs NATIONAL FOODS LIMITED and ANTI-CORRUPTION COMMISSION and JUDICIAL SERVICE COMMISSION Ruled By: MALABA CJ and PATEL JCC and GUVAVA JCC

CC21-19 : NELSON CHAMISA vs EMMERSON DAMBUDZO MNANGAGWA and OTHERS Ruled By: MALABA CJ, GWAUNZA DCJ, GARWE JCC, MAKARAU JCC, HLATSHWAYO JCC, PATEL JCC, BHUNU JCC, UCHENA JCC and MAKONI JCC

HH475-18 : ETHEL TSITSI MPEZENI vs ZIMBABWE ELECTORAL COMMISSION and OTHERS Ruled By: ZHOU J

Appealed SC14-19 : JUDITH ISHEMUNYORO (NEE MANDIDEWA) vs ANTHONY ISHEMUNYORO and TYNSERVE DISTRIBUTORS (PVT) LTD and THE REGISTRAR OF DEEDS and THE SHERIFF FOR ZIMBABWE Ruled By: GWAUNZA JA, HLATSHWAYO JA and ZIYAMBI AJA

View Appeal HH348-17 : JUDITH ISHEMUNYORO (nee MANDIDEWA) vs ANTONY ISHEMUNYORO and TYNSERVE DISTRIBUTORS (PVT) LTD and THE REGISTRAR OF DEEDS and THE SHERIFF FOR ZIMBABWE Ruled By: MUNANGATI-MANONGWA J

HMA36-18 : AMALGAMATED RURAL TEACHERS UNION OF ZIMBABWE vs OBERT MASARAURE and ZIMBABWE AFRICAN NATIONAL UNION [PATRIOTIC FRONT] and MINISTER OF PRIMARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION Ruled By: MAFUSIRE J

HH160-09 : SMART GONONDO vs ALICE MUTEPFA and PORTIA NYAMAROPA and CITY OF MUTARE (DIRECTOR OF HOUSING) Ruled By: MAVANGIRA J

HMA37-18 : AMALGAMATED RURAL TEACHERS UNION OF ZIMBABWE [2] and OBERT MASARAURE vs ZIMBABWE AFRICAN NATIONAL UNION [PATRIOTIC FRONT] and MINISTER OF PRIMARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION Ruled By: MAFUSIRE J

HH517-15 : CHEN WANG vs JOSEPH MANDIZHA and TAWANDA MAVHUNGA and TAFADZWA MAVHUNGA and DARNEL ENTERPRISES (PRIVATE) LIMITED Ruled By: MUREMBA J

HH208-15 : GOOD LIVING REAL ESTATE PL vs ADAM AND COMPANY PL and SGI PROPERTIES PL and HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMITH Ruled By: MUREMBA J

HH223-15 : ZIMBABWE SUGAR MILLING INDUSTRY WORKERS UNION (ZSMIWU) vs ALFRED MAKWARIMBA and KENNIAS SHAMUYARIRA and ELIAS MADZIVA and FREEDOM MUDUNGWE and OTHERS Ruled By: MANGOTA J

HH228-15 : HERBERT MUDZVOVA vs ROBERT MUDZVOVA and THE REGISTRAR OF DEEDS Ruled By: MATHONSI J

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

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

View Appeal HH69-16 : PENELOPE CHIGWADA vs GERALD CHIGWADA and SHEPHERD KUSADA [N.O.] and MASTER OF THE HIGH COURT [N.O.] Ruled By: NDEWERE J

SC103-20 : VERITAS and FIRINNE TRUST ALSO KNOWN AS VERITAS vs ZIMBABWE ELECTORAL COMMISSION and MINISTER OF JUSTICE, LEGAL AND PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ZIMBABWE Ruled By: GOWORA JA, GUVAVA JA and BHUNU JA

HH495-16 : TETRAD HOLDINGS LTD vs MASTER OF THE HIGH COURT, HARARE and THE FORMER PROVISIONAL JUDICIAL MANAGER OF TETRAD INVESTMENTS BANK LTD – W. MILITALA and DEPOSIT PROTECTION CORPORATION Ruled By: MANGOTA J

SC108-20 : SPENCER TSHUMA vs KEVIN MAGWAZA and SEBASTIN MAGODO and MINISTER OF MINES N.O. and HONOURABLE KUBONERA N.O. and PROVINCIAL MINING DIRECTOR, MASH WEST N.O. and SHERIFF FOR ZIMBABWE N.O. Ruled By: UCHENA JA

View Appeal HH139-18 : MARIA SITHOLE vs MATHIAS SITHOLE and CECK ENTERPRISES PL and B.R.M HOVE and PETER DZIMBA and MANNERS JARAVAZA and PARDON CHAKANYUKA and REGISTRAR OF DEEDS Ruled By: DUBE J

HH135-16 : FRANCIS NYADINDU and SHILLAH NYADINDU vs BARCLAYS BANK OF ZIMBABWE LTD and SHERIFF OF THE HIGH COURT (N.O.) and REGISTRAR OF DEEDS (N.O.) and SOLID REAL ESTATE Ruled By: DUBE J

View Appeal HH145-17 : GERTRUDE MUTASA and DIDYMUS MUTASA vs NYAKUTOMBWA & MUGABE LEGAL COUNSEL and SHERIFF OF THE HIGH COURT Ruled By: TSANGA J

HH390-18 : MIDLANDS STATE UNIVERSITY vs ALOIS MATONGO Ruled By: MUZOFA J

HH442-15 : DAVID WHITEHEAD TEXTILES LTD (represented by KNOWLEDGE HOFISI, in his capacity as Final Judicial Manager) vs JYOTSANAGEN KALA and LISTON CHAKUPA and MASTER OF THE HIGH COURT Ruled By: MAFUSIRE J

HH128-09 : ROUTE TOUTE BV & OTHERS vs MINISTER OF NATIONAL SECURITY RESPONSIBLE FOR LAND LAND REFORM AND RESETTLEMENT & OTHERS Ruled By: PATEL J

SC01-10 : ZIMBABWE MINING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION and MINERALS MARKETING CORPORATION OF ZIMBABWE vs AFRICAN CONSOLIDATED RESOURCES PLC and OTHERS Ruled By: CHIDYAUSIKU CJ

SC11-08 : DOCTOR DANIEL SHUMBA and ADVOCATE BRUCE CHIOTA vs THE ZIMBABWE ELECTORAL COMMISSION and MR MUSHANGWE N.O. Ruled By: CHIDYAUSIKU CJ, SANDURA JA, ZIYAMBI JA, MALABA JA and GARWE JA

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

HH214-14 : TETRAD INVESTMENT BANK LIMITED vs BINDURA UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE EDUCATION and THE SHERIFF OF ZIMBABWE Ruled By: TAGU J

SC02-21 : EDDIES PFUGARI (PVT) LTD and EDWARD NYANYIWA vs KNOWE RESIDENTS AND RATEPAYERS ASSOCIATION and NORTON TOWN COUNCIL Ruled By: PATEL JA, BHUNU JA and BERE JA

HH424-13 : HONEY AND BLANCKENBERG vs LOURENCE ERASMUS VERMAAK and OTHERS Ruled By: TSANGA J

Appealed HH591-18 : CAINOS CHINGOMBE and TENDAI KWENDA vs CITY OF HARARE and MINISTER OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT, PUBLIC WORKS AND NATIONAL HOUSING and HOSEA CHISANGO N.O. and GEORGE MAKINGS N.O. and CHENAI GUMIRO N.O. Ruled By: MATHONSI J

HH11-09 : THE MASTER OF THE HIGH COURT vs SITHANDIZILE DHLAMINI MOYO (as executor dative of Estate Late Willas Moyo) and GERTRUDE MOYO and SITHEMBISO KUSODZA Ruled By: GUVAVA J

SC20-21 : TIMOTHY MUYAMBO vs HORTBAC PL t/a LITTLE FLOWER ENTERPRISES and JAMES CHIYANGWA and RONALD KITULI and TENDAI BONGA and MINISTER OF LANDS, AGRICULTURE AND RURAL RESETTLEMENT Ruled By: CHITAKUNYE AJA

HH842-19 : BARIADIE INVESTMENTS (PVT) LTD vs PUWAYI CHIUTSI and TENDAI MASHAMHANDA and REGISTRAR OF DEEDS and SHERIFF OF THE HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE N.O. and ELLIOT ROGERS Ruled By: CHITAPI J

SC25-22 : ELLIOT RODGERS vs PUWAYI CHIUTSI and TENDAYI MASHAMHANDA and REGISTRAR OF DEEDS and SHERIFF OF ZIMBABWE and BARIADE INVESTMENTS PL and LAW SOCIETY OF ZIMBABWE Ruled By: GWAUNZA DCJ, GUVAVA JA and BHUNU JA

View Appeal HMA28-20 : TRIANGLE LIMITED and HIPPO VALLEY ESTATES vs ZIMBABWE REVENUE AUTHORITY and OTHERS Ruled By: ZISENGWE J

SC100-21 : PARKHAM ENTERPRISES (PVT) LTD and NYASHA MOTSI vs ADHESIVE PRODUCTS MANUFACTURES (PVT) LTD and THE MASTER OF THE HIGH COURT N.O. Ruled By: CHITAKUNYE JA

SC115-21 : ANDREW CHIGOVERA vs MINISTER OF ENERGY AND POWER DEVELOPMENT and ZIMBABWE ELECTRICITY TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION COMPANY (ZETDC) Ruled By: GUVAVA JA, MAVANGIRA JA and KUDYA AJA

View Appeal HH85-21 : JULIET KADUNGURE and ANDERSON KADUNGURE and NERIA KADUNGURE vs PATRICIA DARANGWA and MASTER OF THE HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE (N.O.) Ruled By: CHIRAWU-MUGOMBA J

Categories

Your Donation.

Law Portal
Zimbabwe