The brief background is that the applicant and the first respondent were involved in a road traffic accident on the 27th of June 2008. Under case HC 4750/11, the first respondent then issued out summons claiming damages for bodily injury. That action was defended with the applicant herein denying liability and lodging a counterclaim. The matter went up to pretrial conference stage, whereupon the applicant defaulted. His appearance to defend and plea were struck off and the matter was referred to the unopposed roll where the first respondent was awarded the equivalent in RTGS of US$82 500.00 at the official... More
This is an exception to the plaintiff’s claim for damages for defamation on the ground that the words complained of carry no reference to the plaintiff and that the declaration makes no proper allegations of facts which would enable the ordinary reader to identify the plaintiff as the person defamed. The background to the dispute between the parties is as follows: More
The undisputed facts in this case are that the plaintiff being represented by Mr. Ernest Magome the director, carried out refurbishment works at the defendant’s school, Chitsere Primary School worth US$44 375.20. The defendant managed to pay the plaintiff an amount of US$23 700.00 leaving a balance of US$20 675.20. This balance is what the plaintiff is now claiming from the defendant together with interest at the prescribed rate and cost of suit.
The defendant is now refusing to pay the balance alleging that Mrs. Chuma who was the then Acting Headmistress of the defendant and also the chairperson of... More
The application has been brought before this court in terms of Section 31 of the High Court Act [Chapter 7:06] as read with Rule 95 of the High Court Rules, 2021. The applicant is seeking the relief couched in the following way:
“1. Within 10 days of the grant hereof the first respondent shall return to the fourth respondent the record dated 26 October 2020.
2. The fourth respondent shall set down for hearing case No. CIV”A” 43/20 within 10 days of receipt of the record from the first respondent. More
The Applicant seeks an order that:-
a) The second respondent be ordered to delete the entry in his register relating to first
Respondent register number SMS/96/81 now HMS/96/81 and any other entry that was made on the basis of the entry aforementioned; and
b) Respondents be interdicted from registering such Birth registry with ‘Mubaiwa’ as the first respondent’s surname. More
