On 30 October 2009 the applicant company filed an urgent chamber application seeking spoliatory relief. The draft order was couched in these terms:
TERMS OF THE FINAL ORDER SOUGHT
That you show cause why an order in the following terms should not be granted;
1. That respondents or any person acting on their behalf shall be and are hereby
barred from in any way interfering with applicant’s possession and control of the portion of Friedwell Farm (that it controlled immediately before 29 October 2009), including in any way interfering with the possession by the applicant’s workers of the farm compound... More
The plaintiff issued summons against the two defendants claiming payment of a sum of US$ 131 046-22, interest thereon at the prescribed rate from 28 February 2014 to date of full payment and costs of suit on the legal practitioner and client scale. More
The applicant sought an order compelling the respondent to deliver a lease agreement signed between the parties in respect of a property known as stand number 32393 Unit K. After hearing arguments from parties and having considered documents filed of record, the court granted the following order after handing down a brief ex tempore ruling: More
The applicant’s legal practitioners filed this chamber application headed “Chamber Application for Dismissal of Application in terms of Rule 236 (4) (b) of the High Court Rules,1971.” More
This litigation and indeed the dispute between the parties could have been avoided. It is the signal failure of the office of the Mining Commissioner to manage a simple mining issue which has brought about the simmering conflict between neighbours, a conflict which could have led to dire consequences, but for, the commendable self- restraint of the parties who have continued to submit themselves to due process only to be let down by the Mining Commissioner’s Office. More
