Court Judgements
Browse Judgements by Year
The appellant was arraigned before the Provincial Magistrate at Mutare on a charge of fraud as defined in s136 of the Criminal Law Codification and Reform Act, [Cap 9:23]. The allegation against her was that “on 24 February 2010 at Spar Supermarket, Chikanga, Mutare, the appellant, intending to deceive Langton Machikiti or realising that there was real risk or possibility of deceiving Langton Machikiti and intending to cause Langton Machikiti to act upon the misrepresentation to his prejudice or realising that there was a real risk or possibility that Langton Machikiti might act upon the misrepresentation to his prejudice presented... More
: Counsel for the applicants withdrew the application after conceding that the order sought had been overtaken by events. The application sought to bar the respondent from conducting Zimbabwe Teachers Association (ZIMTA) national elections which ran from 22 – 25 April 2005 in Victoria Falls. The application was heard on 17 October 2013 well after such elections had taken place. It was incompetent for the court to bar elections which had already been conducted. Thus the concession by applicants counsel was properly made. More
This is an application for a review of the disciplinary proceedings, which were done by the Respondent’s Disciplinary Committee and which led to the dismissal of the Applicant from the Respondent’s employ. More
The applicant approached this court on an urgent basis seeking a spoliation order. The parties are married to each other and are on separation pending divorce. When the parties separated, the applicant retained property which includes a Chrysler 300D registered in Botswana which he keeps at his house and the respondent a Mercedes Benz CLK 320 and other property. More
At the hearing of this matter I upheld the point in limine, dismissed the application and indicated that reasons would follow. More
It is crucial in this matter to begin with the opposite remarks of WESSELLS J in Whittaker v Ross & Anor1911 TPD 1092 at 1102-1103 that:-
“The object of the court is to do justice between the parties. It is not a game we are playing, in which, if some mistake is made, the forfeit is claimed. We are here for the purpose of seeing that we have a true account of what actually took place, and we are not going to give a decision upon what we know to be wrong facts.” More
This is an application for summary judgment in terms of order 10 r 64 of the High Court Rules 1971. It is based on the followingfacts, “On 20 March 2013, the applicant caused summons to be issued for an order compelling the first respondent to pay the applicant the sum of US$162 870-24 and interest thereof at the rate of 13% per month capitalised on a monthly basis reckoned from the 20th day of March 2012 to the date and month of full payment. More
