Archive logo
© Zimbabwe Law Reports — 2026.
Home

Navigation

Browse

Search

Find a case in seconds

Close search modal

Search by party name, citation, or a phrase from the judgment and move straight to the right volume.

Access noteResults only include content available on your current tier. If you do not have full case access, results from restricted case content will not appear.

Try a starting point
Member access

Welcome back

Sign in to continue browsing Zimbabwe Law Reports.

Don't have an account?

Menu

Close panel
Archive logo
← Home

1982 — Volume 2

Cases

Select a case to view its details and legal content.

S V SIBANDA
1982 (2) ZLR 1 (H)
COWAN AND OTHERS V REGISTRAR OF NAMES, UNIFORMS, BADGES AND HERALDIC REPRESENTATIONS
1982 (2) ZLR 6 (S)
S V NEMAPARE
1982 (2) ZLR 10 (S)
S V CHIRARA
1982 (2) ZLR 19 (H)
S V FRANCIS
1982 (2) ZLR 21 (H)
KUNZ V PRETORIUS
1982 (2) ZLR 24 (H)
HOLLAND V COMMISSIONER OF THE ZIMBABWE REPUBLIC POLICE
1982 (2) ZLR 29 (H)
EX PARTE BURNETT
1982 (2) ZLR 37 (H)
S V MADONDO
1982 (2) ZLR 44 (S)
MINISTER OF HOME AFFAIRS AND ANOTHER V YORK AND ANOTHER
1982 (2) ZLR 48 (S)
F V COMMISSIONER OF TAXES
1982 (2) ZLR 60 (S)
S V PASIPANODYA
1982 (2) ZLR 69 (H)
MANUFACTURERS LIFE INSURANCE CO V ADDISON, NO
1982 (2) ZLR 73 (S)
PATEL V CONTROLLER OF CUSTOMS AND EXCISE
1982 (2) ZLR 82 (H)
S V CHITSINDE
1982 (2) ZLR 91 (S)
BRYCE HENDRIE NO V ASSISTANT MASTER
1982 (2) ZLR 102 (H)
S V APPLETON
1982 (2) ZLR 110 (S)
WILLIAMS V THE TAXING MASTER
1982 (2) ZLR 122 (H)
S V MUSARURWA
1982 (2) ZLR 130 (H)
S V PANDEHUNI
1982 (2) ZLR 133 (S)
S V RHOTAN (PVT) LTD
1982 (2) ZLR 137 (S)
SADOMBA V FARAI UZUMBA (PVT) LTD
1982 (2) ZLR 142 (H)
COMMERCIAL GRAIN PRODUCERS ASSOCIATION V TOBACCO SALES LTD
1982 (2) ZLR 154 (S)
ATTORNEY-GENERAL V CHAGWIZA ATTORNEY-GENERAL V MATAMBO ATTORNEY-GENERAL V MUKONDO
1982 (2) ZLR 165 (S)
S V MLILO
1982 (2) ZLR 175 (S)
S V RUREDZO
1982 (2) ZLR 181 (S)
ATTORNEY-GENERAL V NURMAHOMED
1982 (2) ZLR 194 (S)
S V NYATHI
1982 (2) ZLR 197 (H)
S V MAROMWE
1982 (2) ZLR 200 (H)
S V A JUVENILE
1982 (2) ZLR 201 (H)
DIESEL ELECTRIC (SALISBURY) (PVT) LTD V S & T IMPORT AND EXPORT (PVT) LTD
1982 (2) ZLR 204 (H)
S V JAMBANI
1982 (2) ZLR 213 (H)
ATTORNEY-GENERAL V CHIMWADZE
1982 (2) ZLR 218 (S)
S V RAWSTRON
1982 (2) ZLR 221 (H)
S V MACEYS OF SALISBURY LTD
1982 (2) ZLR 239 (S)
S V JOVNER
1982 (2) ZLR 252 (S)
S V PIVISAYI
1982 (2) ZLR 260 (H)
JEPHCOTT V VAGHMARIA
1982 (2) ZLR 263 (H)
S V HOLMES
1982 (2) ZLR 267 (H)
S V JAMBA
1982 (2) ZLR 273 (S)
S V TWO JUVENILES
1982 (2) ZLR 275 (H)
IN RE PETITION OF STANDARD TRUST LIMITED
1982 (2) ZLR 279 (H)
S V GARDENER
1982 (2) ZLR 290 (S)
PRACTICE NOTE NO. 1 OF 1982
1982 (2) ZLR 302 (H)
S V PEARCE
1982 (2) ZLR 303 (H)
© Zimbabwe Law Reports — 2026.
Home

Navigation

Browse

Search

Find a case in seconds

Close search modal

Search by party name, citation, or a phrase from the judgment and move straight to the right volume.

Access noteResults only include content available on your current tier. If you do not have full case access, results from restricted case content will not appear.

Try a starting point
Member access

Welcome back

Sign in to continue browsing Zimbabwe Law Reports.

Don't have an account?

Menu

Close panel

EX PARTE BURNETT 1982 (2) ZLR 37 (H)

Case details
Citation
1982 (2) ZLR 37 (H)
Case No
Details not supplied
Court
High Court, Harare
Judge
Squires J
Heard
2nd June, 1982
Judgment
28th July, 1982
Counsel
J M d'Enis, for the petitioner.
Case Type
Details not supplied
Annotations
No case annotations to date

Flynote

Insolvency C— Insolvency Act [Chapter 303] - petition for rehabilitation — averments necessary in petition — failure by petitioner during insolvency to disclose to trustee increase in income — effect of.

Headnote

It is not sufficient, in a petition for rehabilitation, merely to make the barest possible allegations in conformity with section 143 of the Insolvency Act [Chapter 303]. To do that does not give the Court the information necessary for it properly to form a conclusion or exercise its discretion to grant the application sought. It is incumbent on the petitioner to make the fullest disclosure of the whole of the income accruing to himself and his household, not only because that information bears directly on what he can afford $\epsilon$ towards further payments (particularly if he is earning and the household is partly supported by a spouse) but also since the amendments to the Act extend the estate vesting in the trustee to that of the spouse as well.

Furthermore - and particularly where the dividend paid to the creditors is non existent or miniscule - if the petitioner's income has increased from the level $\epsilon$ it was when his contributions were fixed, an explanation as to why more was not paid to the creditors ought to be provided in the founding affidavit and not left to an answering affidavit. Failure to pay more when able will gravely imperil the petitioner's chances of rehabilitation.

Sign in required

Continue beyond the preview

Sign in or create a free account — you get 2 full-case reads included.