Court Judgements




(1) ROBERT M GUMBURA (2) BLESSING CHIDUKE (3) LUCKMORE MATAMBANADZO (4) LUCK MHUNGU (5) TAURAI DODZO (6) THOMAS CHACHA (7) ELIJAH VHUMBUNU V (1) FRANCIS MAPFUMO N.O (2) THE NATIONAL PROSECUTING AUTHORITY (2019-11-11)
After hearing counsel in this matter we dismissed the appeal with no order as to costs and indicated that our reasons would follow in due course. Below are the reasons for judgement. More

(1) ZHIQIANG GAO (2) GUIBIAO ZHANG V (1) THE TAXING MASTER (2) DALIAN TIANCHENG MINERAL RESOURCES (PRIVATE) LIMITED (3) BAOMING HUANG (2022-11-25)
This is an opposed application for the review of taxation done by the first respondent in terms of r 56(2) of the Supreme Court Rules, 2018 (“the Rules”). Essentially, the applicants contend that the first respondent acted wrongly in deciding that the second and third respondents’ legal practitioner was entitled to levy her fees using only the upper margin fee of her applicable range of fees and in allowing a fifty percent premium on the fees levied. More

(1) BEATRICE MTETWA (2) TAWANDA NYAMBIRAI (3) MZOKUTHULA MBUYISA (4) DOUGLAS COLTART V (1) RUNGWANDI ANDRUJUWA LEGAL PRACTITIONERS (2)TENDAI MURAMBIDZA (2023-07-25)
The appellants are partners of the law firm practising as Mtetwa&Nyambirai Legal Practitioners (“Mtetwa&Nyambirai”). The first respondent is a legal firm, whose principal is Mark Rujuwa, a former associate at the appellant’s law firm. The second respondent was previously employed by the appellants as an accounts clerk at their law firm. By virtue of his position as an accounts clerk, the second respondent was also a custodian of the keys to the safe ofMtetwa&Nyambirai. Sometime in February 2022, Mtetwa&Nyambirayi discovered that the second respondent had stolen ZWL$32 000 000.00 from its trust account and converted the same to United States... More

(1) BENSON MAKACHI (2) MR MUGAVA (3) SIMON NOTA (4) SILAS GWESHE (5) GIBSON MUTSAKA (6) EVERSON BREAKFAST (7) DAVISON CHIVESO (8) FREDSON GAMA V EVANGELICAL CHURCH OF ZIMBABWE (2022-09-29)
This is an appeal against the whole judgment of the High Court, sitting at Harare, handed down on 29 July 2020 as judgment number HH495/20, wherein the court a quo granted a declaratory order to the effect that the appellants were no longer members of the respondent and were thus not entitled to the use of the respondent’s name and properties. More

(1) CECIL MADONDO (2) CECILIA VIMBAINASHE DAURAMANZI V (1) BRIAN MAPURISA (2) FREDDY CHIMBARI N.O (3) THE MASTER OF THE HIGH COURT (4) CHIVHU HOLDINGS (PRIVATE) LIMITED (5) THE REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES (2018-11-11)
After perusing documents filed of record and hearing counsel in this matter, it was the unanimous view of the court that the appeal lacked merit. Accordingly, we dismissed the appeal with costs and intimated that our reasons would be available in due course. More

(1) CHEVHU HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED (2) CAIN NKALA HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED (3) MASHINGISHINGI HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED (4) TASIMUKA HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED (5) GENEVA HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED (6) TUZ HOUSING PROJECT SOCIETY LIMITED (7)GUKURAIVHU HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY (8) HIGHFIELD CANAAN HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED (9) HEBERT HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED V (1) CREST BREEDERS INTERNATIONAL (PRIVATE) LIMITED (2) MINISTER OF LANDS AND RURAL SETTLEMENTS (2021-07-21)
The appellants are nine cooperative societies which have been dishing out residential stands at a piece of land known as Saturday Retreat Estate (the land) for quite some time. The land is held by the first respondent by Deed of Transfer number 4035/86 and was acquired by the Government of Zimbabwe for urban development by Acquisition of Land Order dated 20 March 2014. More

(1) CRISPEN VUNDLA (2) DAVID MUCHINGURI V (1) INNSCOR AFRICA BREAD COMPANY ZIMBABWE (PRIVATE) LIMITED (2) MAXWELL SABILIKA N.O (2022-02-01)
On 13 April 2021, the applicants filed a chamber application for condonation and extension of time to appeal in terms of r 61 as read with r 43 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2018. It is opposed by the first respondent. More


Midlands State University Library