Court Judgements
High Court of Mutare Judgements
The applicant approached the court through the urgent chamber book on 18 March 2021. Upon perusal of papers filed of record on 19 March 2021, I formulated an opinion that the matter was not urgent. By letter filed with Registry on 24 March 2021, the applicant sought audience to address the court. I directed that the respondents be served and set the matter down for 30 March 2021 thus prompting the hearing.
A conspectus of the background of the matter has to be put into perspective. Sometime in October 2020 the applicant was served with a notice of disciplinary hearing... More
This is an appeal against conviction only of the appellant. The appellant was convicted of Rape as defined in s 65(1) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act and sentenced to 18 years imprisonment of which 3 years imprisonment was suspended for a period of 5 years on condition of future good behaviour. More
The applicant is a duly registered company under the company laws of Zimbabwe. It is the registered owner of mining blocks in Nyazingwe area, Nyanga North under registration numbers G 2121, G 2122, G 2123, G 2124, G 2125 and M 1333 BM and the applicant states it has owned these mining blocks since 2008.
The first respondent was granted a special Grant SG 7222 and that special grant covers a space of 400 hectares.
The applicant contends that the first respondent’s special grant encroaches into its mining blocks G 2121 to G 2124. In addition applicant avers that first... More
On 18 September 2013 first respondent brought an against second respondent seeking second respondent’s eviction from a piece of land situated at Sereko Village, Ward 25, Tombo 2, Nyanga. The basis for such eviction was that she was the owner of that land having inherited it from her late father-in-law in 2007. Second respondent had at one time been leasing the same piece of land from first respondent’s father in law.
Second respondent defended the action arguing that first respondent had no locus standi to sue her for she did not own the land. Second respondent claimed that she was... More
First and second respondents made a court application in the Magistrates Court, seeking an interdict to bar applicant from cutting or removing timber from a woodlot allegedly belonging to first and second respondent. Applicant averred that the woodlot is situated within its demarcated area leased to it by Forestry Commission.
The court a quo concluded that there were material disputes of fact and ordered that the matter be referred to trial and that papers filed by the parties constitute the pleadings. Applicant was dissatisfied by the magistrate’s ruling and brought this application. Applicant contends that the decision of the court... More
