This is an appeal against the Magistrate’s decision allowing the respondent to amend her summons in the court below. The context is as follows: In 2014, the appellant accidentally damaged the respondent’s car which he was driving without the respondent’s consent. In November 2016,the parties entered into an agreement whereby the appellant accepted liability. A memorandum of agreement was then signed in which the appellant and one other undertook to replace the vehicle within three months. It was further agreed that there placement vehicles should not exceed 100 000 km and that the value of the vehicle was US$4500.00. The... More
This is an unopposed claim for general damages for an assault perpetrated upon the plaintiff at about midnight on 13 October 2009, by fourth, fifth and sixth defendants who are police officers. The plaintiff’s declaration merely narrates the events which or evidence of what occurred on the day in question rather than pleading the facts which constitute the cause of action. The declaration contains material which should be found in an affidavit rather than in a pleading. No wonder then that the affidavit of evidence filed in support of the quantum largely reproduces the contents of the declaration. Also, the... More
A brief resume of the broadly common facts in this case are as follows:-
The plaintiff is a citizen of Zimbabwe residing in this country and was the registered owner of a toyota hiace bearing registration number AAZ 7054 (the vehicle). More
This civil trial matter was heard on 5 February 2025. Before the commencement of the trial, the plaintiff’s counsel made an oral application for a postponement of the matter. After hearing oral submissions from the parties’ legal practitioners, the court issued an ex tempore judgment the operative part of which was that the application for a postponement was dismissed. Following the dismissal of the application and the court being satisfied that the plaintiff was not present, I proceeded in terms of rule 56(3) of the High Court Rules, 2021. Consequently, the court granted judgment in favour of the first defendant... More
This matter came before me through the chamber book on 16 April 2012. I directed that it be heard on an urgent basis as I considered the requirements for the procedure fully met. It was set down for hearing on 20 April 2012. Counsel for the respondent argued at length in favour of the grant of the provisional order. Mr Samukange, for the applicant, in the end conceded that without specifically pointing to the basis for reasonable apprehension of unlawful detention, which his client feared the respondent was about to effect, the court could not interdict the respondent from requiring... More
