This is an application to compel the respondent to comply with the decision of an adjudicator in terms of Clause W1.4 of the engineering and construction contract between the parties. More
The applicant, an incorporation registered in the United Arab Emirates, has made an approach to this court, on court application, seeking a provisional liquidation order against the respondent, another incorporation cherishing its domicile in Zimbabwe, on the basis that it is unable to pay its debts and that it is just and equitable that the respondent be wound up. The application is made in terms of s 207 of the Companies Act [Cap 24:03] (the Act). More
The order sought in this matter is that First Defendant’s Special Plea be and is hereby upheld and that the Plaintiff’s claim is dismissed with costs on a legal practitioner and client scale.
In the main action, Plaintiff claimed the eviction of First Defendant and all those claiming occupation through him from stand number 905 of Newark of Hilton of Subdivision A, Waterfalls, Harare. He also claimed damages in the sum of USD 2500.00 for future demolition and removal of structures constructed by First Defendant on the property. More
The applicant was arraigned before a regional court facing a charge of fraud as defined in s 136 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act, [Cap 9:23]. He pleaded not guilty but was convicted as charged. He was sentenced to 4 years imprisonment of which 1 year imprisonment was suspended for 3 years on the usual conditions of good behaviour and a further 2 years suspended on condition he made restitution to the complainant in the amount of US$65 000 on or before 31 March, 2011. He thus would serve an effective 1 year imprisonment. More
This matter was placed before this court in terms of Order 32 r 5 (5) of the Magistrates Court (Civil) Rules, 2019 (the Rules). It is a spin-off from a matter that was determined by the court a quo, in which the applicant herein was the defendant and the first respondent herein was plaintiff. The matter concerned some claims that were made by the first respondent against the applicant in the court a quo, in connection with a lease agreement that subsisted between the parties. The court found in favour of the first respondent and ordered the applicant to pay... More
