The Appellant approached this court by way of appeal seeking to challenge the decision of the Magistrates Court sitting at Harare on 4 July 2023. The respondent in the court a quo made an application seeking to recover from the Appellant, the sum of US$2 360.00 together with interest at the prescribed rate with effect from 30 July 2022 up to the date of final payment. The application was referred to trial and the respondent was successful in his claim. More
Unfolding events in these two matters must rank on top of what the Supreme Court decried very loudly in Ndebele v Ndebele 1992 (1) ZLR 288 (S) 290 C-E. It stated: More
This is an appeal against the whole judgment of the Magistrates Court handed down by Magistrate L Ncube at Harare in case number on HREC-CG 4050/22 on 23 November 2022. On 7 April 2022, the first and second respondents entered into a lease agreement in terms of which the second respondent leased to the first respondent, premises known as Machipisa Bar and Silver Room Tarven, Stand 4292, Machipisa, Harare (hereinafter referred to as the property or the premises). The monthly rental was US$3, 500.00 to be paid monthly before the first day of the month. The duration of the lease... More
A brief summary of the facts is as follows. The present application follows the earlier appeal noted by the applicant which, on 3 June 2021, was struck from the roll for want of compliance with the rules.
On 20 June 2019, the first respondent issued Summons against the applicant, second and third respondents claiming damages for assault, unlawful arrest and illegal impounding of the motor vehicle in the sum of US$ 9 556. The first respondent’s averred in the summons thatPolice Officers from the applicant and second respondent impounded his vehicle on 13 November 2018. The Police Officers also assaulted... More
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
