Court Judgements
Harare High Court Judgements
The first applicant is a publishing house in the print media industry. Its flagship is the weekly newspaper, the Zimbabwe Independent. The second applicant is a non-profit trust. It is the local chapter of an international organisation. Its mandate is described as broadly to fight and expose corruption, and to demand transparency in governments, state-owned firms and private institutions. Respondents 1, 2 and 4 are ministers of governments in charge of local government, finance and transport respectively. Respondents 1, 2 and 4 are ministers of governments in charge of local government, finance and transport respectively. The third respondent [ZUPCO] is... More
This is an opposed application for a postponement. The application was granted in open court and reasons were given ex tempore in the presence of the parties and their legal practitioners. This was on 20 May 2013. More
The plaintiff issued summons out of this court claiming against defendants the cancellation of a contract of sale of flat number B012 Odzi Court between itself and the defendants and costs of suit. The plaintiff stated in its declaration that on 5 February, 2001 parties entered into an agreement in terms of which the plaintiff appointed the second defendant as its agent to find purchasers for its property situate at Stand No. 18336 Harare Township also known as Eastview Gardens. It was an implied term of the agreement that in discharging the mandate, the defendants would disclose their interest in... More
This matter raises issues that have been canvassed in such cases as Benson Samudzimu v Dairibord Holdings (Pvt) Ltd HH 204/10, Sibangilizwe Dhlodhlo v Deputy Sheriff of Marondera & Ors HH 76/11, Ericson Mvududu v Agricultural and Development Authority HH 286/11 and Gaylord Baudi v Kenmark Builders (Pvt) Ltd HH 4/12. More
The applicant filed a Court Application on 25 February 2005, seeking an order compelling the respondent to surrender to it a lap top computer and accessories and a motor vehicle all fully described in the application. The application was duly served and the respondent filed a notice of opposition out of the time limits prescribed in the rules of this court. Despite notice to the respondent to regularise her papers, nothing was done to uplift the automatic bar against the respondent resulting in the matter being properly set down before me on the unopposed roll. More
