CHITAKUNYE AJA: This is an opposed chamber application for condonation of non-compliance with the Supreme Court Rules, 2018 and for extension of time within which to appeal. Though at the outset the applicant did not state the rule that was not complied with and the rule under which this application is brought, it is apparent from the founding papers that the rule not complied with is r 38(1)(a) and the application is in terms of r 43(1) of the aforesaid rules. The intended appeal is against a judgment of the High Court handed down on 29 October 2020 upholding special... More
MAKARAU JA: On 19 September 2018, the High Court sitting at Hararedismissed with costs on a legal practitioner and client scale, an application by the appellant for leave to sue the respondent, a banking corporation in liquidation.This is an appeal against that order.
Background
The dispute between the parties arises from a loan transaction.In 2011, the appellant borrowed the sum of US$3 875 000.00 from the respondent. By 2012, the loan had ballooned to US$5 789 262.00 resulting in the parties concluding a written agreement to restructure the loan. Thereafter the appellant made certain payments towards the restructured loan.
In... More
This is an appeal against the whole judgment of the High Court, which dismissed the appellant’s application for setting aside an arbitral award made by the second respondent. More
This is an application for leave to appeal against the decision of the High Court sitting at Harare on 4 March 2020. In that case (HC 9000/19) the High Court dismissed an application by the applicant for the dismissal of case number HC 11505/18 for want of prosecution. Then in HC 3278/20 the same court dismissed an application for condonation of late noting of appeal filed by the applicant. More
The appeal revolved around mining claims at Wendale 43 Block situated in Domboshava registered under certificate no. 18007. The parties were all registered companies, having been registered in terms of the company laws of Zimbabwe. In February 2018 the first respondent wrote to the appellant, seeking from it a tribute arrangement in respect of the mining location in issue. The request was rejected. Despite the rejection, on 30 May 2018 the first respondent was observed exploiting minerals at the appellant’s mining location. When confronted, the first respondent indicated that it had partnered with the second respondent in a mining venture... More
