The plaintiff herein issued summons against the two defendants out of this court on 13 April 2010. The plaintiff claim as endorsed on the face of the summons was for relief as follows:
a) Delivery to the plaintiff of the equipment described in Annexure ‘A’ to the plaintiff’s Declaration;
b) alternatively payment of the sum of US $34 959.42
c) Interest thereon at the prescribed rate from date of judgment to date of final payment; and
d) Costs of suit. More
This judgment pertains to two action matters that were consolidated as they involved the same property and virtually the same parties. The plaintiffs are husband and wife. The first plaintiff is the wife whilst the second plaintiff is the husband. The first plaintiff is the registered owner of an immovable property being Subdivision B of Subdivision D of Subdivision A of Lot 4 of Lot A of Colne Valley of Rietfontein, also known as no. 47 Addington Lane, Ballantyne Park, Harare. More
There are 2 applications before me, namely an application for condonation of the late filing of an application for rescission of judgment and the application for rescission of judgment. The parties agreed that both matters be heard at the same time.
Ideally the application for rescission of judgment should not have been filed without condonation of its late filing. Filing it at the same time as the application for condonation does not cure the defect. Now that it has been filed it still cannot be considered without its late filing being condoned. Therefore a dismissal of the application for condonation... More
Upon considering the record of proceedings, heads of argument and hearing oral submissions in this appeal we upheld the appeal and made the following order that
1. The appeal hereby partially succeeds.
2. The order of the court a quo is set aside and substituted as follows:
3. The defendants’ shall pay $7 710 to the plaintiff.
4. Each party shall bear its own costs.
These are the reasons for our disposition. More
It is a simple claim by the plaintiff. The plaintiff alleges it was mandated by the defendant to find a purchaser for the defendant’s property viz 30 Southerly Road, Hillside, Harare, technically referred to as stand 8394 Salisbury Township.
The basis of plaintiff’s claim was that it introduced one Rodgers Kativu to the defendant and to the property in question. It was the plaintiff’s averment in its declaration that as a direct result of its involvement, Rodgers Kativu offered to purchase the property for $60 000 and the defendant accepted this offer and that the property was subsequently disposed of... More
