IMMOVABLE PROPERTY

Madamombe v Madamombe & 4 Others (HH 455-19, HC 6977/16) [2019] ZWHHC 455 (03 July 2019);

ISHMAEL MADAMOMBE

versus

WINNIFILDAH MADAMOMBE                                                                          

and

SIBONGILE MADAMOMBE

and

MOLLY KAPUNGU

and

INNOCENT MADAMOMBE

and

THE MASTER OF THE HIGH COURT (N.O)

 

HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE

CHITAKUNYE J

HARARE 16-17 July, 3 August 2018, 6 March 2019 & 4 July 2019

 

Civil Trial

 

Z W Makwanya, for plaintiff

N T Tsarwe, for 1st to 3rd defendants

 

Gava v Mawere & 5 Others (HMA 18/19, Case No. HC 20/18) [2019] ZWMSVHC 18 (31 January 2019);

BRIAN GAVA         

versus

CHAMISA MAWERE

and                                                     

CHAMPION CHAKANETSA (In his capacity as Executor of Estate Late Claudio Chakanetsa)

and

MISHECK MIZEKE

and

MESSENGER OF COURT – GWERU

and

CITY OF GWERU

and

REGISTRAR OF DEEDS – BULAWAYO N.O.

 

 

HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE

MAFUSIRE J

MASVINGO, 31 January 2019

 

Date of written judgment: 8 May 2019

Nzara & 3 Others v Kashumba N.O. & 3 Others (SC18/18, Civil Appeal No. 137/16) [2018] ZWSC 18 (12 March 2018);

DISTRIBUTABLE      (16)

     1. SHORAI MAVIS NZARA  2. AAROLA TAKUDZWA TENDAI IDEHEN  3. AMOSEGE RUDO IDEHEN  4. OSARETIN TANAKA FEMI IDEHEN

v

1. CECILIA KASHUMBA N.O  2. THE REGISRAR OF DEEDS  3. MASTER OF THE HIGH COURT  4. TAFIRENYIKA KAMBARAMI

                         

SUPREME COURT OF ZIMBABWE

BEFORE GARWE JA; GUVAVA JA; UCHENA JA

HARARE: JUNE 2, 2017 & MARCH 12, 2018

 

 

 

Pinkstone Mining (PVT) Limited & 2 Others v Lafarge Cement Zimbabwe Limited & Another (HH118-18, HC 1751/18) [2018] ZWHHC 118 (07 March 2018);

The court considered an urgent application for an order interdicting the first respondent from carrying on mining operations on the applicants’ mineral claims. At some point, the applicants and the first respondent had business dealings involving minerals from those claims. The respondent then went on to register mining claims over a piece of land which included the first applicant’s mining claims. The respondent argued that the matter was not urgent, and that the relief sought was not competent as it was final in effect. 

The court considered whether the applicants had established a right to the relief sought. The court observed that the relief sought was an interim interdict, the requirements for which were: a clear right; irreparable harm; balance of convenience in favour of granting the relief, and no other satisfactory remedy. The court found that the respondent intended to mine on the applicants claim, and although the mining hadn’t commenced, the applicants could not wait until it acted and had established the prejudice likely to be suffered. 

In determining the balance of convenience, the court weighed the prejudice to the applicant if the interdict was not granted against the harm to the respondent if the relief was granted. In this instance, as the mining activities were not being carried on yet, there was no prejudice to the respondent. Accordingly, the court found that the requirements for the interdict were met and the application succeeded.

PINKSTONE MINING (PVT) LTD

and

TIMOTHY MATANGI

and

AFRICAN MILLS & MINERALS (PVT) LTD

versus

LAFARGE CEMENT ZIMBABWE LIMITED

and

MINISTER OF MINES AND MINES DEVELOPMENT

HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE

ZHOU J

HARARE, 2 & 7 March 2018

Urgent Chamber Application

E. T. Muhlekiwa for the applicants

B. K. Mataruka, with him G. Ndlovu for the first respondent

M. Chimombe for the second respondent

Tichareva v Mutsetsema & 3 Others (HH 134-18, HC 4734/07) [2018] ZWHHC 134 (14 March 2018);

MARGARET RUGARE TICHAREVA

versus

INNOCENT GEORGE MUTSETSEMA

and

LEWIS CHIROZVANI

and

MINISTRY OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT, PUBLIC WORKS

AND NATIONAL HOUSING

and

REGISTRAR OF DEEDS

HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE

DUBE J

HARARE, 16 February 2018 & 14 March 2018

Opposed Application

Applicant in person

AK Maguchu, for the respondent

No appearance for the 1st, 3rd & 4th respondents

 

Subscribe to IMMOVABLE PROPERTY