This is a matter in which the plaintiff issued summons against the defendant and claimed various amounts itemised in its declaration as follows:
‘(i) 24 714,77 being unpaid money for the construction of a new deli stores area.
(ii) $16 979,42 being unpaid money for the supply and installation of a full fire scope
system
(iii) $17 801,42 being unpaid retention fee for electrical works
(iv) Interest at the prescribed rate on the claims in (i), (ii), (iii) above from 31st
July, 2014.
(v) Costs of suit on a legal practitioner and client scale. More
At the close of this trial Counsel indicated that they preferred filing written closing submissions. I then directed counsel for the defendant to file his written closing submissions by 17 September 2007. As I write this judgment it is now the 3rd of October 2007 with no submissions having been filed by counsel in spite of a written reminder from his opponent dated 1 October 2007. There has also been no explanation for the default. In the absence of an explanation for the default, I can only assume that counsel for the Defendant has no meaningful submissions to make. Having... More
The applicants seek the grant of interim relief in the form of a provisional order staying execution of a writ issued against them pending the determination of an application for rescission of judgment. This follows a default judgment granted under HC 6363/11 in which matter the first respondent sued the applicants for payment of the sum of US$5000 000-00. More
On 17 August 2011 I entered default judgment against the applicants in favour of the respondent in the following terms:
“IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1. The defendant’s plea be and is hereby struck out.
2. The first, second and fourth defendants shall, jointly and severally, the one paying the other to be absolved, pay to the plaintiff the following amounts:
2.1 US$14 816- 64 at the rate of 5% per annum from 1 February 2011 to date of payment.
2.2 The plaintiff’s costs of suit on the legal practitioner and client scale.” More
The plaintiff herein claims the sum of US$61,944.81 being money which the plaintiff expected to be allocated to it by the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe (RBZ) in terms of a tobacco growers retention scheme. The plaintiff avers that the defendant negligently failed to submit the plaintiff’s application and that, as a result of that negligence, the plaintiff failed to receive its retention money. The defendant disputes any negligence or contractual obligation on its part and denies liability. In the alternative, it is pleaded that any damages proved by the plaintiff should be abated on the ground of its contributory negligence. More
