Court Judgements




Browse Judgements by Year

ATALIA MUKANGANISE AND GRACE MUKANGANISE AND SAMUELMUKANGANISE AND LILIAN MUKANGANISE AND LOVENESS MUKANGANISE VERSUS SIMANGELE MWALE AND THE DEPUTY MASTER AND THE REGISTRAR OF DEEDS (2021-07-15)
DUBE-BANDA J: This is a court application for a declaratory order. Applicant seek an order couched in the following terms, that: 1. The registration of the estate of the late Maxwell Joseph Mukanganise under DRBY 1744/01 is declared null and void. 2. The transfer of the house number 76-2332 Mpopoma, Bulawayo effected into the 1st respondent’s be and is hereby reversed to the estate late Maxwell Joseph Mukanganise. 3. The 2nd respondent be and is hereby ordered to reopen the estate of the late Maxwell Joseph Mukanganise for the executor dative and the administration of estate with the involvement of... More

ATRICEPTS (PVT) LTD VERSUS BYRON SENGWENI N.O. (IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS THE TRUSTEE OF SECURITY MILLS (PVT) LTD UNDER A SCHEME OF ARRANGEMENT) AND SECURITY MILLS (PVT) LTD (ACOMPANY DULY REGISTERED IN TERMS OF THE LAWS OF ZIMBABWE) AND STEPHANIE ZLATTNER (2021-03-18)
MABHIKWA J: This matter appeared before me where the applicant was seeking simply an order that respondent be ordered to release funds that were due to applicant which funds should be used to operationalize the business of Security Mills. The applicant’s claim in simple terms, was that 1st respondent (Mr B. Sengweni) is a trustee of the 2nd respondent company as constituted in terms of a court order granted under cover of case number HC 2839/18. He is in charge of the matters of the said 2nd respondent company which is under a scheme of arrangement. More

AUGUR INVESTMENTS OU AND TATIANA ALESHINA AND KENNETH R SHARPE VERSUS TENDAI BITI AND MOVEMENT FOR DEMOCRATIC CHANGE ALLIANCE AND THE NEWSHAWKS (2021-08-20)
The 1st defendant has raised an exception to the plaintiffs’ summons and declaration and a special plea in bar against the 1st plaintiff the details of which will be dealt with later in this judgment. More

AUGUSHITO KAMBA APPELLANT VS NATIONAL SOCIAL SECURITY AUTHORITY RESPONDENT (2021-08-27)
The brief background of this matter which is generally common cause is that, on the 20th July 2020 appellant was served with a charge letter in which he was being charged with an act of misconduct in terms of the National Social Security Authority Code of Conduct. In terms of Section 10.6 of the Code the matter is to be determined within 30 days from the date of service of the charge letter upon failure of which the matter shall be referred to a Labour Officer in terms of Section 101(6) of the Labour Act. More

AUGUSTINE GWATIDZO VERSUS SHAIRINE NDLOVU (2021-03-18)
MABHIKWA J: The plaintiff issued summons against the defendant and prayed for; a) A declarator that the Nissan Latio motor vehicle Registration number AEP 1249, chassis No. INBAAC1120005684 and engine No. HR 15174100A is the property of the plaintiff. b) Delivery of the Nissan Latio motor vehicle with registration Nos. AEP 1249, chassis Nos. INBAAC1120005684 and engine No. HR 15174100A. c) Delivery of the Registration Book and agreement of sale for the Nissan Latio motor vehicle. d) Costs of suit. More

AUGUSTINE MAHWANA APPLICANT AND ZIMBABWE ANTI-CORRUPTION COMMISSION RESPONDENT (2021-04-09)
The applicant was employed by the respondent. He was charged of misconduct and brought before a disciplinary committee. The disciplinary committee found him not guilty of the charge. It made recommendations to the disciplinary authority that the applicant was not guilty but nevertheless that evidence also showed unethical conduct which did not amount to a commission of the charge. More

AUTOWORLD BULAWAYO PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS BULAWAYO CAR BREAKERS PRIVATE LIMITED AND ZIMBABWE REVENUE AUTHORITY AND THE REGISTRAR OF DEEDS (2021-09-30)
This is an urgent chamber application for an interdict. The applicant is a tenant at stand number 5120, Stockton Road, Belmont, Bulawayo in terms of a lease agreement held with the first respondent. The lease is expiring on the 31st December 2021. A dispute has emerged between the applicant and 1st respondent regarding the ownership of a 20 meter by 18 meter steel structure which was erected by the applicant in February 2016. When the applicant notified the first respondent’s representatives of its intention to remove the steel structure at the end of the lease, this was opposed. The first... More


Midlands State University Library