[1] Applicants seek condonation for taking a special plea out of time. Mr. Jingini Raphael Tsivama, applicants` legal practitioner, deposed to the founding affidavit.Similarly, Mr Chenjerai Daitai, the legal practitioner representing first respondentreciprocated with the answering affidavit. Mr. Tsivama also drew up the applicants` heads of argument. Whilst no issue was raised by either side regarding the source of these depositions, I will briefly comment, in the course of this judgment, on their peculiar relevance to the disposal of the matter at hand.
[ 2] This application was opposed by first respondent. Third respondent indicated that it was not opposed... More
It never ceases to amaze me how parties who on their own initiatives enter into contractual agreements end up creating unnecessary complications in the interpretation and implementation of such agreements. This is one such an agreement. More
The plaintiff instituted action proceedings against the defendant claiming the following:
‘(i) a declaration that defendant breached the bonding agreement;
(ii) payment in the sum of US$12 614-98 being money owed to the plaintiff due to a breach of the agreement;
(iii) interest on the amount of US$12 814-98, calculated at the prescribed rate of interest from 31 October 2015, being the date of resignation. More
Before me is an application by the Zimbabwe National Road Administration (ZINARA) for rei vindication in respect of a Toyota Hilux (double cab) motor vehicle, registration number AEC 7539 (“the vehicle”). The application is opposed. The factual background giving rise to the dispute is that in May 2010, the applicant and the respondent entered into a contract of employment. The respondent was employed as IT Manager of the applicant. The contract appears in the record on pages 8-10 marked Annexure “B”. Clause 6(b) of this contract reads as follows: More
Before me is an application by the Zimbabwe National Road Administration (ZINARA) for rei vindication in respect of a Toyota Hilux (double cab) motor vehicle, registration number AEC 6465 (“the vehicle”). The application is opposed. The factual background giving rise to the dispute is as follows: sometime in March 2010, the applicant and the respondent entered into a contract of employment. The respondent was employed as regional engineer of the applicant, as evidenced by the contract marked Annexure “B”, which appears on pp 8-10 of the record. Clause 6 (b) of this contract reads as follows: More
