The plaintiff instituted summons against the defendant for;
a) payment of $101 781-60 being the value of diesel stolen and misappropriated by the
defendant during his employment with the defendant More
The respondents are former employees of the applicant. They were retrenched in 2012. They were paid their pensions in terms of s11 of the Public Service (Pension) Regulations, Statutory Instrument 21A of 2001 (the Regulations). More
This exception has been filed by the third defendant in a matter in which it purports to be sued by the plaintiff (CMED) as one of the material players in the non-delivery of 3 million litres of diesel that was due to it from the first defendant, FIRST OIL. The third defendants argues that the plaintiff’s summons do not disclose a cause of action in terms of order 2 Rule 11 (C) which requires a true and concise statement of the nature, extent and grounds of the cause of action and of the relief and remedies sought in the action.... More
On 23 June 2008 the plaintiff and the defendant entered into an insurance agreement. The insurance policy issued to the plaintiff (the insured) was to cover damage to the “whole or part of the property described in the schedule, owned by the insured or for which they are responsible, including alterations by the insured as tenants to the buildings and structures”. Specifically the insurance was against damage from “ fire, lightning or thunderbolt, explosion and such additional perils as are stated in the schedule.” More
At the hearing of this matter both parties were in agreement that the factual issues were not contentious and they submitted a statement of the undisputed facts to the court and mutually agreed on the issues that the court had to determine after hearing argument. More
