LINCOLN MAJOGO

Introduction Within a fortnight, the High Court of Zimbabwe has handed 2 dissenting judgments on a similar issue. One which I shall refer to as the Mafusire judgment (Judgment handed down by Justice Mafusire in Stone Beattie v CABS & Ors HH 118-23) and another, which I shall refer to as the Chinamora judgment (Judgment handed down by Justice Chinamora in Duncan Hugh Cocksedge v CABS & Ors HH 152-23) . Both judgments relate to the right to withdraw United States dollar deposits held in bank accounts before 22 February 2019 in that currency. The Applicants in both matters insist on withdrawing their money in United States dollars(USD), the currency in which they deposited their funds, and not in local currency at the rate of one as to one with the Zimbabwean dollar. The chief grievance of the Applicants stems from various laws that were passed by the Government of Zimbabwe from the period 2015-2019 whose effects were to convert USD balances held in banks before 22 Februar

Introduction Penelope Douglas Stone and Richard Harold Stuart Beattie (Hereinafter referred to as Stone Beattie) were two of the many Zimbabweans who were affected by the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe (RBZ) Directives (R)T 120/18 , later supported by SI 33 of 2019 and Finance Act 2 of 2019 whose effect was to convert United States dollar balances held in bank accounts to Zimbabwean dollars depending on the source of funds. The RBZ and the Ministry of Finance passed a number of laws in which all assets and liabilities which were expressed in United States dollars (Referred to as the USD) before 22 February 2019 were converted to local currency at the rate of one as to one with the Zimbabwean dollar. The implication of the new policy and law was that if you had 1(one) United States dollar in your account, that became equivalent to 1(one) Zimbabwean dollar.  RBZ claimed that it has an international facility to ensure that the value remained one-as-to-one with the United States dollar. Thus

  Introduction Joint ownership of matrimonial property has numerous implications in law. For instance, a couple may register matrimonial property as co-owners, and later on, one party decides to alienate their share forcing the rest of the family to cohabit with strangers in the same house. What does the law say regarding such circumstances where one party acts recklessly in disposing of their share in a matrimonial property without the consent of the other to the detriment of the family? This piece unpacks the law on the subject matter beforehand. Brief facts of the matter In the Ishemunyoro case, the Appellant, a woman who worked for the government was offered a rent-to-buy option with respect to certain immovable property in Sinoia Township. For convenience, we shall refer to this as the property. She would pay the purchase price through monthly salary deductions from her employer ie the Government. The property was then registered in the names of the Appellant and her husban