At the hearing of this matter the applicant raised three points in limine against the 1st and 2nd respondents and moved that they should remain barred and judgment be granted in his favour against them as prayed.
The first issue was that the 2nd respondent filed its opposing papers out of time and was automatically barred. It should have applied for the upliftment of the bar but it did not. It was served with the court application on 16 December 2003 by the Deputy Sheriff. The dies induciae expired on 5 January 2004. The 2nd respondent only filed its notice... More
At the conclusion of the trial on 18 October 2022, counsels agreed to file written heads of argument. Mr Zenda undertook to file heads on behalf of the plaintiff by 24 October 2022 and he complied with his undertaking. Mr Mahuni undertook to file heads on behalf of the defendant by 28 October 2022. At the time of writing this judgment on 1 November 2022 no such heads were filed neither was there any explanation for such failure from Mr Mahuni. The court can only express its displeasure at such failure but nevertheless proceed to prepare its judgment. More
On the 24th of July 2012 one Mubarak Aete Khan (now deceased) was driving the third plaintiff’s Toyota Land Cruiser Motor Vehicle registration number AAN 8105 along the Harare-Gweru road with the first and second plaintiffs in the same motor vehicle. The deceased was the first plaintiff’s husband. At the 272 kilometre peg there occurred a head on collision between the first defendant’s FLB Freightliner Motor Vehicle registration number RLM693 GP trailer number ZMP 061 GP being driven by the second defendant and the vehicle driven by the now deceased. More
The applicant and the first respondent were at the material time parties to a long lease agreement. The applicant leased a plot known as Stand 554 Chirundu Township, measuring 198.5 hectares (“the property”) from the first respondent, for the purpose of carrying out the business of fish farming. The lease was set to lapse in 2054. The first respondent cancelled the lease in October 2016, alleging gross underutilisation of the property. More
The first and second defendants have made an application for the dismissal of the plaintiffs’ claims against them, on the basis that there has been an abuse of the process of the court on the part of the plaintiffs. In addition, due to the absence of a legal practitioner acting on behalf of the first, second and third plaintiffs on the date scheduled for the trial before me, it is contended that the named plaintiffs were in default of appearance, and that therefore, in the event that I am not persuaded to dismiss the claim on the first argument advanced,... More
