: I was on the urgent applications duty roster in the week beginning 26 March, 2018 through to 1 April, 2018. Being on urgent duty is a daunting assignment for any judge because the judge on duty is on call twenty four hours. Judges take turns to perform the 24 hour shift. It is their duty to be available all the time to dispense justice to all and sundry. More
Applicant is the testamentary executor of the estate late Vassilliki Divaris. The late Divaris owned 454,890 shares in respondent bank (“Tetrad”). On 28 June 2023, Tetrad published a notice of an extraordinary general meeting (“EGM”). The EGM was scheduled to take place on 20 July 2023. Its purpose being to procure shareholder approval to change the nature of the company`s business. Tetrad`s directors had resolved to surrender the bank`s licence and set sights on venturing into property and real estate. More
The plaintiff issued summons against the defendant, claiming the following relief:
a) “payment in the sum of US42 000.00 or its lawful Zimbabwean dollar equivalent.
b) Interest thereon at 10% per month calculated from the date of Summons to date of full payment.
c) Collection commission calculated in terms of the Law Society By Laws.
d) An order that the rights held by Defendant in certain immovable property being Stand 22871 Ruwa Township of subdivision of Sebastol held under Deed of Transfer No 4138/20 be declared executable.
e) Costs of suit on an attorney –client scale.” More
The applicant and the first respondent are divorced. They were previously married in terms of the laws of Zimbabwe. Their marriage was terminated by order of this court on 28 July 2006. The third respondent is their son. At the time of the divorce he was still a minor. He has since attained majority status and has through an order of this court been joined to these proceedings. The second respondent is cited in his official capacity as the authority responsible for registration, deregistration, endorsements of Deed of Transfers and mortgage bonds and monitoring the Deeds regis More
The trial of this matter was set down before me with two defendants cited as follows – first defendant was Nyaradzo Catherine Magoge –Mashindi and second defendant as Tango Mining P/L T/A Dinhidza Mine. Second defendant was the former employer of the plaintiffs. The summons was apparently served on persons who had taken over Dinhidza mine from second defendant without being second defendants’ successor in title. As a result an appearance to defend was erroneously entered on the instructions of the persons served with the summons who instructed Mr Muza who has since realised that those that instructed him to... More
