This is an urgent chamber application for an interdict in which the following order is sought (as amended);
“TERMS OF FINAL ORDER SOUGHT”
That you show cause to this Honourable Court if any, why a final order should not be made in the following terms:
1. The urgent application for an interdict pending the hearing of case number HC 4433/21 be and is hereby granted.
2. Respondent pays costs of suit on higher scale More
The above notation on first and second applicant counsel`s appearance triggered an objection from Mr. Mpofu who appeared for the second respondent. The pithy of his protest being that by purporting to appoint separate counsel, first and second applicant effectively and improperly severed their case. I will return shortly to this point in greater detail.
[2] I would have disposed of this objection is summary fashion. However, the arguments subsequently raised necessitated an interpretation and issuance of guidance on, among other matters, the relationship between the rules of the General and Commercial Divisions of the High Court. More
This is an appeal in terms of section 65 of the Income Tax Act, ( ITA) where on 3 March 2020 the parties agreed that the main issues for determination would be the following:
“1. Whether or not the respondent failed to give reasons for reassessing the appellant thus rendering the assessment unlawful.
2. Whether or not there was any fraud, misrepresentation or willful non- disclosure of facts entitling the Respondent to reassess the Appellant for the years 2010 and 2011 after the expiry of the six (6) year prescription period?
3. Whether or not General Notice 274 of 2010... More
This is an urgent court application for an actio rei vindicatio in respect of a motor vehicle, a Toyota Hilux (Double Cab) Registration No. AFU 9680. The motor vehicle belongs to the applicant. It was allocated to the respondent for use as an employment benefit. It is common cause that the respondent is no longer an employee of the applicant, having been retrenched and given his retrenchment package. More
The 1st defendant leased its premises to the plaintiff in June 2009 for the warehousing, storage and related handling of tobacco bales. The 2nd defendant contracted to provide security services for the premises and its contents. Following the loss of 1446 bales of tobacco, the plaintiff sued both defendants for their value in the sum of US$438,355. The plaintiff’s claim is grounded in contract or, in the alternative, in negligence. More
