This is a court application filed for the removal of the first respondent as liquidator of Willdale Transport Services (Private) limited (Willtrans) together with an interdict against 1st Respondent holding a Special Meeting of the Creditors then set for 20 May 2020 to ratify his decision to sell Willtrans’ assets, or in the alternative, a declaration that the Special Meeting was a nullity and setting aside any resolution which may be passed authorizing or ratifying the sale, and consequently, the sale of the assets having been done unlawfully, the same should be set aside. Finally, the Applicant seeks a mandamus,... More
The plaintiff seeks an order that the defendant’s replace his wife a Toyota Emina Minibus, in the alternative plaintiff seeks that he be reimbursed the sum of US$11, 544-00 as representing the replacement value of the said motor vehicle. The relief sought is opposed by the second defendant. The first defendant has not sought or filed any pleadings in this matter and did not appear at the pre-trial conference, or at the trial. The first defendant is in default having been served with summons. More
The plaintiff herein claims an amount of US$15,390 as the outstanding balance for service and repair work carried out on the defendant’s Iveco minibus, together with interest at the rate of 2% per month and costs on a higher scale. The defendant disputes claim on the ground that the plaintiff’s work was defective and not in accordance with expected skills and standards. More
: The brief background to the matter is that the parties had an employer-employee relationship from October 2002 to October 2014. During the course of the relationship, the respondent was entitled to the use of a motorvehicle namely Mazda BT50 registration number ABI-6903 (the motor vehicle). The motor vehicle is owned by the applicant. On 3 October 2014, the applicant commenced a procedure to retrench the respondent. More
This is an application for the uplifting of the automatic bar. The applicant had failed to enter an appearance to defend respondent’s summons whichhad claimed payment of an amount of US64 000-00 as damages for breach of contract. The summons had been served on applicant’s sales man, one MisheckSande [Sande]. Sande is said to have passed on the summons to the receptionist. The receptionist was notmentioned. There was no information on what the receptionist had done with the summons. More
