Court Judgements
Under case no CCZ 10/2022, the applicants applied to intervene in certain ongoing proceedings brought by the first respondent against the second and third respondents. The essence of the order sought in these ongoing proceedings is a declaration that the second respondent failed to fulfil a constitutional obligation, the precise nature of which is yet to be determined. I shall hereafter refer to these ongoing proceedings as “the main matter”.
The application for intervention was placed before me for determination. Before the hearing of the application, the applicants made an application for my recusal.
After hearing submissions from the parties... More
After the provisional order had been granted, the first respondent sought the joinder of the appellants which was granted. On the return date the High Court, after hearing the parties, granted an order which had not been sought by either party. The appellants noted an appeal against that order and raised four grounds of appeal of which the third ground attacked the granting of an order not sought by the parties. In their Heads of Argument, the respondents conceded that the court a quo had irregularly granted an order not sought by the parties. More
This is an appeal against the whole judgment of the High Court handed down on 2 July 2020 inter alia nullifying the Mashoko-Kusisa Family Trust, directing the first appellant and the third respondents to render a full account of the business operations and functions of that trust from 8 May 2006 and dismissing the claim for the eviction of the first respondent and those claiming occupation through her from the trust property known as No 1 Franco Close, Borrowdale Harare (the property). More
(1) This is an appeal against the whole judgment of the High Court, granting a spoliation order in terms of which the appellants were ordered to restore possession of Danga 16442, Oceana 5545, Reedbuck 2 5535BM, Reedbuck 1 55 35BM and Lucky 8260 BM mining claims (hereinafter referred to as “the mining claims”) to the first respondent and finding the first appellant guilty of contempt of court. More
These matters were referred to this court by a magistrate’s court in terms of s 24(2) of the former Constitution of Zimbabwe (“the former Constitution”). The applicants allege a breach of ss 15(1) and 18 of the former Constitution. The relief sought is a permanent stay of criminal proceedings. More
This is an application in terms of ss 85 (1) (a) and 85 (1) (b) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment (No.20/2013) (“the Constitution”). The first applicant is acting in both her own interest and that of her husband who is the second applicant. More
The applicant filed an urgent chamber application for the setting aside of para 11 of the High Court’s order made after hearing consolidated opposed applications in H/C 6272/19, H/C 6630/19 and H/C 6692. In para 11 of its order the court a quo ordered that:
“Notwithstanding any appeal that the first respondent may file against this order, the operation of this order shall not be suspended by the filing of such an appeal.”
The court a quo’s order in para 11 was clearly intended to render the anticipated appeal by the applicant ineffective as regards the suspension of the orders... More
