The plaintiffs issued summons against the defendant for damages for psychological trauma, pain and suffering allegedly caused to the first and second plaintiffs arising from Air Carriage. The allegations are that the first and second plaintiff who are minors, travelled on the defendant’s airline to South Africa on 30 March 2016. More
The appellant appeals against her conviction and sentence. She denied that she had stolen US$24 000, 00 from her employer but, after a trial, she was convicted and sentenced to 4years imprisonment of which 6 months were suspended for 5 years on condition of good behaviour and 36 months on condition she makes full restitution of the whole amount through the clerk of court on or before 30 April 2012. There is an order annexed to the sentence requiring “household property to be returned to accused.” More
The application for bail pending appeal against both conviction and sentence was dismissed on the basis that the conviction was well sounded on evidence adduced before the court and that the trial court properly exercised its sentencing discrepancy and came up with an appropriate sentence in the circumstances. More
This is an application for maintenance pendente lite and contribution towards costs made in terms of r 67 of the High Court Rules 2021 which permits such as n application where there is a need for such support in divorce proceedings. The applicant seeks maintenance in the sum of £.1700.00 a month as well as a contribution of 80% towards her legal costs. The common cause facts are that she moved to the United Kingdom from South Africa where she was living with her husband. She was not working as she had previously left her nursing job in England to... More
On 20 April 2012 the applicant filed an urgent chamber application seeking certain relief against the first, second and third, respondents. The matter was set down for hearing on 26 April 2012 at midday. On that day it was postponed to the next day to allow the first and second respondent to file their opposing papers. It was observed too that no service of the application had been effected on third respondent. The applicant undertook to rectify this failure to comply with the court’s directive. More
