On 4 July 2016 the applicants failed to attend court at 0900 hours, resulting in the court granting default judgement in HC 12306/15 in the following;
“1. That the judgement debt capital sums and interest owing to the first respondent from the first applicant and the second applicant in terms of judgments HC 2572/11, HC 2004/11, HC 2005/11 and HC 2005/11 be and are hereby declared settled in full. More
This is an application for an order joining the second respondent as a party to the proceedings launched by the applicant by summons action in case No. HC 9536/11. The basis of the application is that the second respondent has a substantial interest in those proceedings and may be affected by the decision made in that matter. More
By agreement, three interconnected cases were consolidated and argued as one. The central dispute is over the rights, title and interest in a certain gold mine called Mirage 3, situate in Kwe Kwe, in the Midlands Province (“the mine”). In a nutshell, two protagonists, Fidelity Printers and Refiners (Pvt) Ltd (“Fidelity Printers”), and Jona (or Jonah) Nyevera (“Nyevera”) tussle for the right to occupy the mine and to exploit certain gold ore sands piled there. Both claim rights of ownership deriving from their certificates of registration of the mine with the Ministry of Mines and Mining Development (“the Ministry of... More
This application has been decided on papers without hearing oral submissions from the parties pursuant to paragraph 4 of Practice Direction 2 of 2021 headed Operational Directions on hearing urgent chamber and bail applications during the Level IV Covid-19 Lockdown period. Paragraph 4 of the said Practice Direction reads as follows:
“4) With effect from 22 January 2021, a Judge may consider and dispose of an urgent chamber or bail application on the papers without calling the parties to make oral representations or arguments…”
In casu the Applicant filed its application, the third Respondent filed his Notice of Opposition and... More
The two appellants were each charged with one count of fraud as defined in s 36 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act, [Cap 9:23]. They both pleaded not guilty. After a trial, they were convicted. They were each sentenced to five years imprisonment of which one year was suspended on conditions of good behaviour and a further two years were suspended on condition that they, each, make restitution in the sum of US$20 000.00 towards the complainant. They now appeal against both conviction and sentence. More
