KARWI J: The appellant was arraigned before the Magistrates’ court at Bindura facing six counts as follows:
Count One: Assault as defined in s 89 (1) (a) of the Criminal Law (Codification & Reform) Act [Cap 9:23]
Count Two: Undermining Police Authority as defined in s 177 (a) (1) of the Criminal Law (Codification & Reform) Act [Cap 9:23]
Count Three: Assaulting a Police Officer as defined in s 176 of the Criminal Law (Codification & Reform Act) [Cap 9:23]
Count Four: Assault as defined in s 89 (1) (a) of the Criminal Law (Codification & Reform) Act [Cap 9:23]... More
The parties are involved in an ownership dispute of certain mines situated in Kadoma. Sometime in July 2009 they entered into a written agreement in terms of which they swapped certain mining claims with the applicant taking over mining blocks known as Gazemba 105 to 108 belonging to the respondent. In terms of that agreement, the respondent was to take over certain gold mining claims belonging to the applicant. More
The applicant is the registered user of certain trade marks belonging to AECI Limited, a South African registered company. The same marks were assigned by their proprietor to ICI South Africa (Pty) Ltd which assignment does not affect the status of the registered user, the applicant. More
This is an application which, in the main, seeks an order ad pecuniam solvendam. In other words, the claim is for the first respondent (hereinafter called “CABS”) to pay to the applicant the sum of US$179, 541-45 within seven (7) days from the date of the order, plus 5% percent interest on the aforesaid sum from 5 December 2016 to date of payment. Alternatively, the applicant asks for an order that the respondents pay the applicant the sum of US$179, 541.45, jointly and severally, the one paying the others to be absolved. In addition, the applicant seeks an order nullifying... More
In more than three quarters of the opposed court applications filed in this court, respondents raise one or more preliminary points. This is one such case. In some instances, preliminary points are argued to greater length than the merits of the case itself. This invariably results in judgments to dispose the preliminary points which may either succeed or fail. In casu, the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 6th and 7th respondents raised a number of preliminary points which are subject of this judgment. More
