The application before me is a rei vindication action brought by the applicant against the respondent. The applicant desires an order from this court ordering the respondentto return two motor vehicles to it, viz a Nissan Sunny FB 14 1996 model bearing registration No. 829 – 998 W and a Nissan Sunny HB 12, bearing registration Number 505 – 933 B.
Two notable positions or defences come out of the respondent’s opposing affidavit and poorly drafted heads of argument. The respondent has argued that this court does not have the jurisdiction to meddle itself in labour-related disputes as he perceives... More
The plaintiff is an incorporation whose business is the distribution of electricity to all parts of Zimbabwe. It is a subsidiary of ZESA Holdings (Pvt) Ltd charged specifically with electricity transmission and the provision of electricity services throughout the country. The defendant on the other hand is a statutory body constituted and operating in terms of the Urban Councils Act [Chapter 29:15] and is the local authority running the affairs of the town of Zvishavane which is situated in the Midlands Province of this country. More
This is an application for summary judgment in terms of Rule 64 of the High Court Rules of 1971 which provides as follows:
“64. Application for summary judgment
(1) Where the defendant has entered appearance to a summons, the plaintiff may, at any time before a pretrial conference is held, make a court application in terms of this rule for the court to enter summary judgment for what is claimed in the summons and costs. More
From a distance this is a simple application for rescission of judgment in order to pave way for the reinstatement of the defendant’s plea which was struck out by this court on 21 October 2010. A closer look at the application and the responses thereto make interesting, edifying and of course quite revealing aspects of the law as canvassed by the parties. I propose to start by providing a detailed background of this case. More
On 18 December 2009 the applicant herein issued a purchase order in favour of the respondent for the supply by the latter of 2500 diaries at the total price of US$25 242-50. The diaries were for the year 2010 and it is common cause that the respondent has delivered to the applicant a total of 566 diaries valued at US$4 213-83. The respondent has not delivered the balance and the applicant has cancelled the contract and has now approached this court for an order for restitution of the balance of the purchase price paid to the respondent for the outstanding... More
