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
This is an application for rescission of default judgment granted on 10 May 2012 in Case No HC 3958/12.
The background to the matter is that the applicant borrowed US$40 000 from the respondent at an interest of 20% per annum in February 2011 and payable by 28 February 2012. The applicant failed to liquidate the debt when it became due resulting in the respondent issuing summons on 21 April 2012 for the US$80 000. More
