This is an appeal against part of a judgment handed down at Harare Magistrates Court on the 9th of April 2021 in case number 3025/20.
FACTS
Appellant sued for the eviction of the Respondent from premises known as number 616 Muonde Road, Mufakose, Harare (the premises) in the lower court. The premises were once leased to one Alina Matenga also known as ElinaElina but the lease was cancelled. Respondent and his mother, Asina Black (now deceased) were in occupation of the premises illegally.Appellant based its suit on the fact that there was no lease agreement between it and the Respondent.... More
This is an application for the upliftment of the bar which came into operation following the failure by the applicant to enter appearance to defend within the time stipulated in the Rules of Court. The applicant herein is the defendant while the respondent is the plaintiff in Case Number HC 9909/11 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the main action’). More
We heard the above appeal on 19 September 2023 and granted it on the following terms:
1. The appeal succeeds with costs.
2. The order of the court a quo be and is hereby set aside and is substituted with the following order:
a. That the plaintiff’s claim for eviction is hereby upheld
b. That the defendant and all those claiming occupation through him are hereby ordered to give vacant possession to plaintiff, failing which they are to be evicted from Shop Number 16, Samora Machel Parkade, Harare, being plaintiff’s premises. More
The plaintiff sued the defendant for payment of the sum of $541 217.84 being outstanding balance, as at 2 December 2013, on defendant’s account for the supply of treated water. Plaintiff also sought interest on the above amount at the prescribed rate, costs of suit and collection commission. On the date of hearing plaintiff amended the figure claimed to $528 614.85 More
The applicant sought relief in terms of r 449 for the correction of an order granted by this court after a pre- trial conference between the parties. It was alleged that the issued order incorrectly captured the case number and the second, third and fourth respondents were not cited. The application was opposed. The respondents’ opposing affidavits dedicated most of the response to the background of the matter. There was no discernible basis for opposing the application, in fact there was a veiled concession to the granting of the order sought. More
