Welcome to Midlands State University Library

Court Judgements



Browse Court Judgements by court
The plaintiff’s claim is based on contract between the parties. It is the plaintiff’s case that the defendant gave the plaintiff a sole mandate instruction to carry out design and performance of all contractual works in relation to the development and upgrade of the defendant’s property in Avondale. Having accepted the mandate, the plaintiff commenced work in October 2020. The instruction, inter alia, included feasibility studies, preliminary works, project costing budget, permit applications, roadworks designs, sewer drainage designs and construction of buildings. Plaintiff said it was a material term of the agreement for the defendant to pay the plaintiff for... More

The Applicant Honey and Blanckenberg, instituted interpleader in terms of r 30 of High Court Rules for the court to declare to whom it should pay an amount of $70 000 currently held in trust as rentals for certain companies. According to applicant’s affidavit, the companies in question are being laid claim to by nine different respondents. The tenth respondent, the Registrar of Deeds, was cited to throw light on the question of ownership by virtue of certain statutory returns that have been filed with it. Despite the assistance that the court would indeed have obtained from the tenth respondent’s... More

On 13 August 2020, the parties appeared before me in an urgent chamber application for stay of execution filed by the applicants. The salient facts are that, on 3 February 2020, the parties appeared before JUSTICE TSANGAunder HC 670/20 after the first respondent filed an urgent chamber application. An interim order was granted with the following operative part: “INTERIM RELIEF SOUGHT That pending the return date, the applicant is granted the following relief: 1. The respondent be and is hereby ordered to within 48 hours of the granting of this order return to the applicant’s possession the following property: (a)... More

Plaintiff and defendant were married on 2 September 1978 under the then Marriage Act [Chapter 5:11] as evidenced by the marriage certificate a copy of which was tendered as an exhibit. The marriage was blessed with three children, Blessing T. Shiriyapenga (born 25 September 1979), Obrian O. Shiriyapenga (born 4 July 1962) and Obey T. Shiriyapenga (born 11 December 1985). On 21 October 2021 plaintiff issued out summons for divorce and ancillary relief. In her declaration she averred that the marriage of the parties has irretrievably broken down and there is no prospect of restoration of a normal marriage relationship... More

This is an application for review in which the applicant is challenging the ruling of the first respondent which dismissed his exception to the criminal charges that he is facing for contravening s 184(1)(c) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act (the Code). The ruling was handed down on 21 November 2022. The applicant claims that the ruling was only made available to him on 12 December 2022. More