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
On 9 January 2007 the plaintiff herein instituted proceedings against the defendant by way of summons for an order for its ejectment from three immovable properties. The defendants filed papers in defence of the claim and in due course the matter was referred to a judge in chambers for the holding of a pre-trial conference. Issues for trial were agreed by the parties at the pre-trial conference and thereafter the matter was referred to trial. When the matter was called for trial Mr Uriri on behalf of the defendant indicated to the court that the defendant had a preliminary issue... More
At the conclusion of the plaintiff’s case, Mr Uriri indicated that the defendant was applying for absolution from the instance and that he had the application ready which would be filed the following day. In the event the application was only filed on 16 September 2010. The response from the plaintiff was in turn filed on 21 October 2010. This has contributed in part to the delay in the determination of the application. More
