This matter makes bad reading and its background can be summarised as follows:-
After the arbitrator had considered the submissions made by both the applicant and the first respondent, the Arbitrator determined the matter in favour of the first respondent and ordered the applicant to pay the respondent a total sum of $10 060-00 (ten thousand and sixty dollars) for having unfairly terminated the latter’s employment. This determination was made on 17 November 2011. More
This is an application for summary judgment.
The plaintiff issued summons against the defendant on 10 September 2009 claiming the following:
1. Payment of the amount of US$52 579.51 with interest thereon capitalized monthly at the rate of 12 % per annum from 7 September 2009 to date of payment in full;
2. Costs of suit on the scale between legal practitioner and client together with collection charges
3. An order declaring the mortgaged property to be especially executable. More
This is an application for an order setting aside a deed of settlement executed by the applicant and the respondent in Case HC 2810/17. The applicant’s prayer as set out in the draft order reads as follows:
“IT IS ORDERED THAT,
1. The Deed of Settlement signed between the applicant and the respondent in case No HC 2810/17 and filed with the Registrar of the High Court on 27 November 2017 be and is hereby set aside.
2. The respondent shall pay the applicant’s costs on a legal practitioner and client scale.” More
This is a chamber application for the dismissal of the first and second respondents’ application in case No. HC 2702/18 for want of prosecution. The application is in terms of Order 32 r 236 (3) (b) of the High Court Rules, 1971.
Background
A certain immovable property belonging to second respondent was sold in execution to fourth respondent by private treaty for $230 000.00. The sale was pursuant to writ issued in case No. HC 9692/13.First and secondrespondents who are some of the judgment debtors in case No. HC 9692/13 objected to the sale. They undertook to bring before third... More
In November, 2004, the respondents as owners of the applicant sold the assets and goodwill of applicant to Construction Resources Africa, a company duly represented by Danny Musukuma. There were various terms and conditions pertaining to the sale of the assets and the goodwill as well as the directorship and the shareholding of the applicant company. In 2006 a dispute arose regarding the sale agreement. This led to the respondents to purportedly cancel the sale and instituted vindicatory proceedings in case number HC 109/07. The trial in that case has since gone through and judgment was reserved by my sister... More
