The adage that the law does not help the sluggard finds expression in the operation of the provisions of the Prescription Act [Chapter 8:11] which provides for the prescription of a debt if no action to claim the same is done within a period of three years in the absence of interruption. Such interruption can be through an express or tacit acknowledgment of liability by a debtor in which case prescription shall start running again from the date on which the interruption commenced. This court finds that this is the situation that the plaintiff finds itself in, and has not... More
The factual background of this matter is largely common cause. Sometime in 1992 the applicant and the first respondent entered into an agreement in terms of which the applicant sold to the first respondent a piece of land situate in the District of Salisbury called Stand 14773 Harare Township of Salisbury Township Lands measuring 1 4221 hectares (the property). In terms of clause 7 of the agreement the first respondent was to develop the stand by commencing erecting buildings within six months from the date of infrastructure servicing and complete same within twelve months from such date. Pursuant to the... More
This is an application which is being made in terms of Article 34 (2) (b) (ii) of the Arbitration Act [Chapter 7:15] to set aside the arbitral award which was awarded in favour of the first respondent on 28 July 2017. The applicant is the City of Harare a body corporate incorporated in terms of the Urban Councils Act [Chapter 29:15]. The first respondent Augur Investments OU is a peregrinus incorporated in Mauritius. The second respondent is the Minister of Local Government, Public Works and National Housing (the Minister) whilst the third respondent is Honourable Retired Justice Mtshiya cited in... More
This opposed application was argued on the 9th February, 2017 and the court reserved judgment then. While preparing the judgment it occurred to me that none of the counsels had raised an issue as to whether respondents 4 – 22 were properly before the court as none of them had filed any opposing affidavits or any supporting affidavit making common cause with either second or third Respondents who had purported to be authorised to file opposition on their behalf. This aspect was so pertinent and could not be determined without giving the parties an opportunity to present argument on it.... More
MUNGWARI J: On 25 November 2020 in case number HC 5833/20 MUSHORE J granted an order in favour of the respondents in this application. The order was obtained in default of the applicant. Aggrieved by the turn of events, the applicant on 16 June 2022 filed an application seeking the rescission of that judgment. A simple calculation of the time lag between the date when the judgment was issued and the time when the application for rescission of the judgment was filed shows a delay of one and a half years. The default judgment in issue reads as follows: More
