On 5 August 2022, the plaintiff issued summons against the defendant claiming the total amount of one hundred thousand United States dollars being fifty thousand United States dollars for adultery damages and another fifty thousand United States dollars for loss of consortium and companionship. This was later amended following the defendant’s plea to fifty thousand United States dollars for loss of consortium and conjugal rights and fifty thousand United States dollars for contumelia. More
This application has been brought in terms of s 14 of the High Court Act [Chapter 07:06], and seeks certain declaraturs and consequential relief. From the draft order, the declaratory orders that the applicant has asked for can be summarized as follows:
1. That the first respondent did not validly serve the applicant with the application under HC 3647/17 and, as a result, the default judgment entered against the applicant on 22 November 2017, per MUREMBA J, was sought and granted in error. More
: The plaintiff and the defendant were married on 24 May 2002 and on 15 April 2016 the plaintiff filed summons for divorce and other ancillary relief against the defendant.
During the course of their marriage the parties were blessed with two children who are still minors. They acquired movable and immovable property. Sometime in March 2017 after the commencement of these proceedings the plaintiff who was employed and later retrenched by the National Social Security Authority (NSSA) got his retrenchment package.
At the per-trial conference held on 26 March 2018 the parties made concessions and agreed that their marriage... More
The factual background is largely common cause. Sometime in June 2013 the applicant (Clovgate) and second respondent (ZPC) entered into a contract to carry out lift shaft structural refurbishment of the Kariba Power Station. They agreed on a contract price. Clovgate claimed the contract was varied resulting in it incurring extra expenses used in the refurbishment works. ZPC disputed this position which resulted in a dispute between the parties. The parties then appeared before the 1st respondent for arbitration. More
The applicant seeks leave to execute the judgment of this court per TAGU J delivered on 13 January 2021 under HC 1897/16 (judgment No. HH 26/21). The relief sought is aptly set out in the draft order as follows:
“WHEREUPON after reading documents filed of record and hearing counsel it is ordered that:
1. That the Applicant be and is hereby granted leave to execute judgment No. HH 26/21 granted by this court under case HC 1897/16 on 13th January 2021.
2. That the Applicant furnish security to the satisfaction of the Registrar.
3. That in the event of an... More
