In March 2009, the applicant approached this court on a certificate of urgency and obtained a provisional order calling upon the respondents to show cause why they should not be ordered to release certain items of household goods and effects whose details were listed in an annexure to the application. As interim relief the second respondent was ordered not to sell or dispose of any of the property on the schedule. The second respondent was also restrained from releasing any of the property to anyone other than the applicant. More
The applicant is a company duly incorporated according to the laws of Zimbabwe. It specializes in electronics, solar and gas appliances. First, second and third respondents are ex-employees of the applicant. Upon leaving employment, first and second respondents founded the fourth respondent, whose line of business is more or less similar to that of the applicant. Fourth respondent was incorporated according to the laws of Zimbabwe. The applicant accuses respondents of certain business malpractices that it finds synonymous with unlawful competition and therefore a threat to its own business. For that reason, it approached this court seeking an interdict against... More
This application initially came as an application for a provisional order for the company’s voluntary winding up. A provisional liquidation order was granted on 22 June 2011. On 27 July 2011 the respondent filed its notice of opposition. The matter is here today for the confirmation of the provisional liquidation order granted on the 22nd of June 2011. More
The plaintiff claims a total sum US$14,875 being the balance due in respect of two batches of broiler chicks delivered to the defendant in October 2008 and February 2009. The defendant disputes the principal claim on several grounds and counterclaims damages in reconvention for the payment of US$9,331 in addition to set-off of the total amount claimed by the plaintiff More
Plaintiff issued summons against the Defendant, on 30 June 2011, claiming:
1. Payment in the sum of US$178 294,00 (one hundred and seventy eight thousand two hundred and ninety four United States Dollars), being damages suffered by Plaintiff as an alleged consequence of defective goods sold to Plaintiff, by Defendant, in or about December 2010.
2. Interest at the prescribed rate, calculated from 15 April 2011, being the date of demand, to the date of payment in full.
3. Costs of suit.
In its declaration, Plaintiff averred that, Defendant knew, at all material times, that it was in the business... More
