The plaintiff in this case claims payment in the sum of $29 million, together with interest at the prescribed rate, in respect of a cheque drawn on the account of the 3rd defendant and signed by the 1st and 2nd defendants. More
: In this urgent application the applicant prays for a provisional order which is couched as follows:
“TERMS OF FINAL ORDER SOUGHT:
That you show cause to the Honourable Court why a final order should not be made in the following terms:
1. The 1st, 2nd and 3rd Respondent be and are hereby ordered to vacate and ensure that its officers are removed from the property called Haydon Farm Mt Hampden Zvimba.
2. The 1st and 2nd Respondent’s officers are hereby interdicted and barred from entering said property.
3. The 1st and 2nd Respondents shall pay the costs of this... More
The applicant, who faces three charges in the magistrate court one being
for extortion as defined in s 134 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act,
[Chapter 9:23] the second being for possession of dangerous drugs as defined in s 157 of the
same Code and the third being for possession of prescription preparatory Drugs as defined in
s 30 (1) of the Medicine and Allied Substances Control Act, [Chapter15:03] was denied bail
pending tria More
The background facts to this matter are outlined by the applicant as follows. The 1st claimant leases a farm owned by the 2nd claimant. In 2018 it entered into a finance agreement with Honeytech Investments Pvt Ltd (the 1st claimant) in terms of which the applicant extended to the 1st claimant a loan in the sum of US$384 000.00. The 1st claimant was obliged to utilize the finance to plant a barley crop. The 1st claimant planted the crop and delivered to the applicant 730.30 tons of barley valued at US$444 022.40. More
The plaintiff issued summons against the defendants claiming US$26 924.00 being monies due and payable to it in respect of beverages supplied on credit. More
