This matter came as an Urgent Chamber Application for stay of execution.
The genesis of the matter can be traced back to an HC 2887/05 order granted by GUVAVA J (as she then was) and an HH 458/19 order granted by FOROMA J.
The first applicant is a company, in this matter represented by its general manager by virtue of a resolution attached as Annexure “A”. The company develops and sells residential stands.
The second applicant is a male adult associated with first applicant.
First respondent is an association of residents of Knowe. Second respondent was a chairman of first... More
It is not in dispute that applicant owns a piece of land in Whitecliff which land falls under the jurisdiction of the respondent as the local authority. In 1998 applicant was issued with a permit in terms of the Regional, Town and Country Planning Act, [Chapter 29:12] to subdivide Whitecliff into residential stands. More
On 13 March, 2017 I perused the documents filed of record, heard counsel and delivered an ex tempo judgment. It read:
“IT BE AND IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. The first and second respondents shall, within ten days of service of this order, provide the third respondent with sufficient police manpower and equipment to maintain the peace while the third respondent enforces the writ of ejectment in case number SC 45/12.
2. The first and second respondents shall pay costs of suit. [emphasis added]” More
On 30 November 2011, and after hearing viva voce evidence from the plaintiff and considering the fairly detailed submissions made by the plaintiff’s counsel I granted the following order: More
This matter comes before the Court on an exception raised by the defendant against specific claims pleaded in the plaintiff’s declaration. The defendant contends that certain claims - specifically claims 2, 3, 4, and 5 - fail to disclose a proper cause of action because they do not sufficiently allege the requisite elements of negligence or a special duty of care necessary for a delictual claim. The plaintiff, by contrast, asserts that the defendant’s unauthorized engagement with third-party suppliers, conducted without proper due diligence and in breach of the plaintiff’s internal procedures, caused quantifiable financial loss. This judgment addresses both... More
