The appellant was the applicant in the court a quo. In his founding affidavit, he stated that he lent US$10 000-00 to the first respondent on 4 September, 2014, payable on or before 4 October, 2014 in terms of a written agreement concluded on 4 September 2014. More
At the initial hearing of this matter and as a result of Mr Muziwi for the State raising argument in support of the point in limine after the defence counsel had addressed the court on the merit it was agreed that the court peruses the record in B2178/20 in order to appreciate the dispute which resulted in applicant’s appeal being stuck off the roll to enable the Court to determine whether appellant had returned to Court on the same defective papers. More
Stare decisis is part of the jurisdiction of this court and indeed of many jurisdictions the world over. Its meaning and import are not only clear. They are also straight forward. Stare decisis, in simple terms, stresses the obvious. The obvious is that an inferior court is bound by the decision(s) of the superior court. The inferior court cannot, by parity of reasoning, ignore or wish away the decision(s) of the superior court unless it can show, in its attempt to wish away such, that the circumstances of the case which the parties placed before it are distinguishable from those... More
In 2013 Zimbabwe celebrated the birth of a new Constitution. It is an epoch in the life of Zimbabweans. The new Constitution also brings with it certain obligations on institutions and other office bearers. It is such obligations that the applicant brings this application against the respondents seeking an order in the following terms:
“IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1. The first respondent’s failure to enact an Act of Parliament stipulated in section 198 (a) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe was a breach of section 324 of the Constitution.
2. The first respondent be and is hereby ordered to enact a... More
The second defendant has filed a special plea to the plaintiffs’ claims.
The plaintiffs’ claims are based on the following synopsis. The first defendant is the Local Authorities Pension Fund, a registered Pension Fund. The second defendant is the plaintiffs’ former employer. The plaintiffs brought an action for payment of $1 570 783.20 being total benefits due and payable to them by the first defendant in terms of pension contracts entered into in respect of their retirement from service of the second defendant. More
