This is an appeal against the whole judgment of the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal handed down on 15 April 2021 as judgment number HH 167-21, under case number LPDT 09/18. The Disciplinary Tribunal (the Tribunal) found the appellant guilty of conduct that was unprofessional, dishonourable and unworthy of a legal practitioner and ordered the deletion of his name from the register of Legal Practitioners, Notaries Public and Conveyancers. More
The appellant appeals against an order handed down by the High Court (the court a quo) on 29 June 2021. The court a quo dismissed his application for condonation and upliftment of the bar. The bar arose from the appellant’s failure to serve his appearance to defend on the respondents within 24 hours, in breach of r 49 of the then subsisting High Court rules, 1971. These rules were repealed and replaced by the new rules, High Court rules, 2021 on 23 July 2021. More
On 1 September 2010 the respondent was employed as the resident director of the appellant in terms of an executive employment agreement. In terms of the contract the respondent, as representative of the Board of Directors, was responsible for the supervision and direction of policy on a daily basis. In addition, he was mandated to represent the company in relation to the appellant’s stakeholders. Some of his specified duties, in terms of the employment agreement, were to disseminate Board decisions to management, overseeing the implementation of Board decisions and providing oversight over operational and administrative issues that impinged on policy... More
The background facts are largely common cause. The appellant is a transporter of note while the respondent is a fuel monger. They have a long standing business relationship whereby the respondent has been supplying the appellant with bulk fuel over the years. On 1 November 2018, the parties entered into a sale agreement in terms of which the respondent sold and the appellant purchased 150 000 litres of diesel. More
Following a successful appeal to this Court against a judgment of the High Court ordering the eviction of the appellant from house number 484 Jakaranda Drive Victoria Falls (the house) when it had not heard the merits of the dispute but only points in limine, this Court handed down judgment which reads in part as follows:
“1. …
2. The appeal succeeds with each party bearing its own costs.
3. The judgment of the court a quo on the merits is set aside.
4. The matter be and is hereby remitted to the court a quo for determination of the... More
