Law Portal
Zimbabwe

Welcome To Law Portal

Welcome, Guest!
[Help?]

Appeal, Leave to Appeal, Leave to Execute Pending Appeal re: Interlocutory Judgments & Nature and Effect of Relief Granted

Appealed
SC20-12 : ZIMBABWE OPEN UNIVERSITY vs GIDEON MAGARAMOMBE and DEPUTY SHERIFF HARARE N.O.
Ruled By: CHIDYAUSIKU CJ

This is a Chamber application in which the applicant, the Zimbabwe Open University (hereinafter referred to as "the University"), seeks the following relief –(a) An order that the appeal, SC25-12, be heard on an urgent basis; and(b) A stay of the sale in execution of the University's property, attached in ...
More

HH35-08 : BRETT LEONADES PISSAS vs HELEN LOUISE PISSAS
Ruled By: GOWORA J

The parties herein were formerly husband and wife. Two minor children were born from the union, namely, Anthony Christie Pissas (born 8th March 1994) and Dean Alexander Pissas (born 13th October 1995).On 2 November 2006, this Honourable Court granted a decree of divorce in favour of the respondent herein. The ...
More

HH41-09 : NYASHA CHIKAFU vs DODHILL (PVT) LTD and SIMON KEEVIL and MINISTER OF LANDS AND RURAL RESETTLEMENT
Ruled By: BERE J

Having heard the case involving the same parties in case number HC1028/09, in chambers, on 10 March 2009, I granted the following provisional order on 16 March 2009;“INTERIM RELIEFPending the confirmation of this matter, the applicants are granted the following relief:(a) That applicants' possession, use, and occupation of remainder of ...
More

HH02-10 : JOHN RODGER & OTHERS vs FRIK MULLER & OTHERS
Ruled By: PATEL J

The first and second applicants are directors of the third applicant, which operates safari activities in the Zambezi Valley Area.The first and second respondents are directors of the third respondent, which is also a safari operator.The fourth respondent is the National Parks and Wildlife Management Authority (the Authority) responsible for ...
More

HH89-09 : THE DIOCESAN TRUSTEES FOR THE DIOCESE OF HARARE vs THE CHURH OF THE PROVINCE OF CENTRAL AFRICA AND CHAD GANDIYA
Ruled By: BHUNU J

The parties are engaged in rather acrimonious litigation concerning the consecration of the second respondent as the Anglican Bishop of Harare, on 26th July 2009, done in the face of a Court Order barring such consecration. On 24 July 2009 HLATSHWAYO J..., issued a provisional order barring the first respondent in the following terms: “TERMS OF INTERIM ...
More

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, ...
More

HB110-09 : EDGARS STORE LIMITED vs RAMSON (PVT) LTD and BHIMJI INVESTMENTS (PVT)LTD and THE MESSENGER OF COURT, HARARE
Ruled By: NDOU J

More importantly, an order granting leave to execute under section 40 of the Magistrates Court Act [Chapter 7:10] is interlocutory, and, accordingly, not appealable – Van Leggelo v Transvaal Cellocrete (Pty) Ltd 1953 (2) SA 287 (T); South Cape Corporation (Pty) Ltd v Engineering Management Services (Pvt) Ltd 1977 (3) SA 534 (A)..., and South ...
More

HH04-10 : MYDALE INTERNATIONAL MARKETING (PVT) LTD vs DR ROB KELLY and HAMMER AND TONGUES (PVT) LTD
Ruled By: GOWORA J

The first respondent herein had, under Case No. HC1049/09, instituted proceedings against the applicant and second respondent herein. On 30 March 2009, OMERJEE J issued an order as follows:“IT IS ORDERED THAT:1. Mydale International Marketing (Pvt) Ltd is entitled to receive from the second respondent and have in its custody ...
More

SC45-13 : UNIVERSITY OF ZIMBABWE vs KWANELE MURIEL JIRIRA and LOUIS MASUKO and DEPUTY SHERIFF HARARE
Ruled By: MALABA DCJ, GOWORA JA and PATEL JA

At the hearing of this matter, counsel for the respondents raised the preliminary points that the appeal was invalid and that the relief sought by the appellant was incompetent. His argument ran as follows.Firstly, the court a quo determined the application before it by holding that it was not urgent. Its finding as ...