Court Judgements
Browse Judgements by Year
The accused is a member of the neighbourhood watch committee. On 18 March 2007 he was at Gundura business centre Gokwe together with seven colleagues, investigating crime. During the course of investigations the accused and his accomplices accosted the seventeen complainants at a local shop. More
The accused are all facing one count of attempting to defeat or obstruct the course of justice. None of the accused tendered a plea. Instead an application was launched on behalf of all of them by Advocate Mehta with the concurrence of all counsel. In the application the accused seek that the State furnishes them with certain documents which are in its possession. More
The Plaintiff sued both defendants for the return of his motor vehicle or alternatively damages arising from the alleged wrongful and unlawful sale of his motor vehicle registration number 670 – 745 J to the 2nd Defendant by the 1st Defendant. More
On 18 January 2007 I issued an order dismissing this application and ordering costs against both applicants jointly and severally. I have been requested to give my reasons and these are they. More
The plaintiff ordered an Isuzu KB 250 double cab motor vehicle from the defendant in June 2005. The defendant is a car dealer. The price quoted to the plaintiff for the motor vehicle was $850 000 000-00. The plaintiff paid that sum on 1 June 2005. On 27 June 2005 the defendant, through its managing director, acknowledged receipt of the money and undertook to deliver the motor vehicle within 21 (twenty-one) working days. The motor vehicle was to be imported from South Africa. At the expiry of the twenty-one days there was no delivery. The defendant requested an extension of... More
This is an urgent chamber application for a spoliation order that was filed by the applicant on 12 September 2007. It was allocated to me on 13 September 2007 and I set it down for hearing on 18 September 2007. All the respondents filed opposing papers. The applicant did not have an opportunity to file his answering affidavit as the opposing affidavits were filed on 17 September by the fourth respondent and during the hearing by the first to third respondents (the new farmers). More
At the close of this trial Counsel indicated that they preferred filing written closing submissions. I then directed counsel for the defendant to file his written closing submissions by 17 September 2007. As I write this judgment it is now the 3rd of October 2007 with no submissions having been filed by counsel in spite of a written reminder from his opponent dated 1 October 2007. There has also been no explanation for the default. In the absence of an explanation for the default, I can only assume that counsel for the Defendant has no meaningful submissions to make. Having... More
