Court Judgements




(1) NICOLETTE JANE MARSH (2) JAMES MICHAEL EVANS (3) GUY HUNTLY EVANS(4) LLOYD DAVID POWELL STEVENS (5) SEAN LEE MULLENS(6) FAYZAL GIRACH V (1) REGISTRAR GENERAL OF CITIZENSHIP(2)PRINCIPAL DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION (3) THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ZIMBABWE (4) THE MINISTER OF HOME AFFAIRS AND CULTURAL HERITAGE (5) THE MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND INTERNATIONAL TRADE (2021-05-17)
CHITAKUNYE AJA: This is an appeal against part of the judgment of the High Court of Zimbabwe handed down on 31 October 2018. In that judgment the court a quo granted the first appellant’s application but dismissed the applications by the other appellants. The applications were, inter alia, for declaration of the appellants’ citizenship status. This appeal initially pertained to those appellants whose applications were dismissed. More

(1) PARKHAM ENTERPRISES (PRIVATE) LIMITED(2) NYASHA MOTSI V 1) ADHESIVE PRODUCTS MANUFACTURES (PRIVATE) LIMITED2) THE MASTER OF THE HIGH COURT N O (2021-07-20)
CHITAKUNYE JA: This is an opposed chamber application for reinstatement of an appeal in terms of r 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 HC 1314/20 judgment number HB 12-21. More

(1) PEPPY MOTORS (PRIVATE) LIMITED T/A AGRITECH (2) SABRINO SARPO (3) TONY SARPO V 1) RUZIRUN INVESTMENTS (PRIVATE) LIMITED (2) JOICE TEURAI ROPA MUJURU (3) THE SHERRIFF (N.O) (2023-03-17)
This is an appeal against the whole judgment of the High Court which confirmed a provisional order that the first and second respondents had satisfied their judgment debt denominated in US Dollars by making payments in RTGs dollars converted at a bank rate of one United States dollar to one RTGS dollar. More

(1) PETER HINGESTON VERSUS BILLIARD MUSAKWA N.O. AND MALVERN MUSARURWA N.O. AND ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ZIMBABWE (2015-11-12)
The applicants in the above matters sought on an urgent basis similar relief by way of provisional orders. Although I heard each application separately andon different dates, the cause of action in each of the applications is substantially the same and the draft orders filed of each record are identical, word for word. More

(1) PUNGWE CHIMURENGA HOUSING COOPERATIVE VERSUS JETMASTER PROPERTIES (PVT) LTD AND DEPUTY SHERIFF HC 5566/11 (2) TENDAI CHITIMBE AND SHEPHERED CHIPIDZA AND NANISAYI CHIMUSORO AND FARIRAYI CHIFAMBA AND SEKAI CHIKETA VERSUS JETMASTER PROPERTIES (PVT) LTD AND THE DEPUTY SHERIFF HC 5584/11 (2011-07-13)
The above matters have been consolidated in the interest of and at the behest of the parties. In this judgment I shall refer to the application under case number HC 5566/11 as “the first case” and the application under case number HC 5584/11 as “the second case.” More

(1) REPHIO CHIRUMBWA (2) GEORGE SAIZI (3) EMMANUEL HOVE (4) DAVID NJANJI (5) JOHN MUHOMBA (6) PATRICK ALIFANDIKA (7) TINASHE MASIKATI (8) MIKE ONDA (9) MOSES MURONDA V (1) BETHLEHEM APOSTOLIC CHURCH (2) BISHOP ZACHARIA CALEB GEMU N.O (2019-10-22)
This is an appeal against the whole judgment of the High Court handed down on 11 April 2018 in which it granted a spoliation order in favour of the respondents directing the appellants to restore the respondents to the church temple and premises located at Stand 3874 Caledonia, Harare. The High Court also ordered the appellants to release keys to the temple to the respondents and ordered the appellants to pay costs on a legal practitioner and client scale jointly and severally the one paying the others to be absolved. More

(1) S. J. W. (IN HIS CAPACITY AS LEGAL GUARDIAN OF MINOR CHILD R. S. W) (2) H. C. W. (IN HER CAPACITY AS LEGAL GUARDIAN OF MINOR CHILD C. R. H. M) V (1) LOUISE MORRISBY (2) CARL STUART LAPHAM (3) ST. CHRISTOPHERS SCHOOL (4) TRUSTEES FOR THE TIME BEING OF ST. CHRISTOPHERS SCHOOL TRUST (5) BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF ST. CHRISTOPHERS SCHOOL (2023-03-23)
By judgment delivered on 5 October 2022, the High Court [“the court a quo”], dismissed the appellant’s court application made in terms of s 27(1) (c) of the High Court Act [Chapter 7:06] [“the High Court Act”] as read with r 62 of the High Court Rules, 2021, for the review of disciplinary proceedings conducted by the respondents. This appeal is against that judgment. More


Midlands State University Library