This matter was filed as an appeal against the whole judgment of the Supreme Court dated 18 May 2015. The appellants submit that the appeal is noted in terms of s 167 (1)(a) and (c) as read with s 167 (5)(b) as further read with s 169 (1) of the Constitution. More
The above two (2) matters involving the same parties arise from the same facts. They were set down for hearing on the same day before me. On the date of hearing the parties agreed to argue the 1st case only as its determination would necessarily dispose of the second application. The parties therefore as per their agreement argued the application under cover of case number HC 823/19. It is an application in terms of Order 9 Rule 63 of the High Court Rules 1971. It seeks an order setting aside a default judgment of this court granted in case number... More
This is an appeal against the judgment of the High Court dismissing an application by the appellants for a declaratory order and consequential relief pertaining to various fundamental rights, in particular, the right of children to shelter. The application was dismissed with no order as to costs. More
I heard these three applications together. The first two applications seek similar relief. The applicant in the third application seeks to be joined as fourth responded in the first application. More
This judgment involves two consolidated appeals from the High Court (the court a quo) being case numbers SC 258/20 and SC 285/20. The court issued a consolidation order dated 29 March 2021 by consent of the parties. Both appeals are based on the same record of proceedings and issues in the court a quo under Case No. HC 6503/19. It was therefore convenient to consolidate the two appeals because the matter was determined by the same judge a quo on the same facts and issues. The two appeals arise from the same judgement. Each appellant lodged its own appeal against... More
(3) The applicants noted an appeal to this Court against the decision of the High Court in HC 1348/21. The parties thereafter appeared before the Registrar in terms of r 55 (2), for the determination of the amount the applicants had to pay as security for the respondents’ costs. The Registrar determined the amount the applicants had to pay as the respondents’ security of costs and the period within which it was to be paid. More
MAKONI JA: This is an appeal against the whole judgment of the High Court declining to grant, each of the appellants, declaratory relief that the respondent’s unilateral debit of their bank accounts held with it (the respondent) was unlawful. More