Plaintiff issued summons against the defendant for payment of the sum of fifty-three thousand one hundred and eighty-three dollars ($53 183.00) being money allegedly due and owing to the plaintiff in terms of a verbal acknowledgement of debt made by the defendant in favour of plaintiff at the offices of Messrs Mbidzo, Muchadehama and Makoni legal practitioners. It is plaintiff’s case that the defendant acknowledged being indebted to the plaintiff in the above sum on 28 July 2010 at number 8 Phillips Avenue Belgravia, and undertook to settle within a reasonable time. To date defendant has failed to settle the... More
The plaintiff issued summons claiming firstly, payment by the first and second defendants jointly and severally, the one paying the other to be absolved, in the sum of USD 69 567.95 in respect of goods sold and delivered at the specific instance and request of POLYHANDY (PRIVATE) LIMITED, which is under provisional liquidation, and for which the first and second defendants bound themselves as sureties and co-principal debtors in respect of its debts. More
On the 6th of December 2017 a default order was granted against the applicant. In terms of the rules of the court the applicant if so advised, has 30 days within which to apply for the rescission of the default order. The applicant did not, and therefore seeks condonation for the late filing of the application for rescission. More
The history of mental illness runs deep in Learnmore Michael (the accused)’s family. His mother lives with mental illness. He has a sister who lives with the same condition whilst another of his sisters committed suicide. She was driven into it by a mental health problem. As will be illustrated later in this judgment, there is evidence that the accused may have been mentally ill at the time he committed this murder. It may not be possible to apportion blame on him for his actions. More
[1]This is an application for a declaratory order in terms of s 14 of the High Court Act [Chapter 7:06]. The applicant is a company incorporated in accordance with the laws of Zimbabwe. The first respondent claims to be an employee of the applicant, which claim is rejected by the applicant as it will more fully appear later in this judgment. The second respondent is a Labour Officer employed by the Ministry of Labour and Social Services, who issued a ruling subject to this application.
[2]The applicant seeks an order in the following terms:
Be and is hereby; More
