MUSITHU J: This application for review was filed in terms of s 27 of the High Court Act [Chapter 7:06]. The applicant seeks the setting aside of the decision of the second respondent which directed the third respondent to advertise and conduct a sale in execution of the applicant’s cotton wool processing plant (the plant) and the subsequent sale in execution held on 29 December 2023. The applicant averred that the procedure leading to the sale of its plant was grossly irregular as it was done in contravention of the provisions of the Magistrates Court (Civil) Rules, 2018 (the rules). More
MUZOFA J: The plaintiff’s claim is for damages in the sum of $35 442.00 for loss of goods and $140-00 for costs incurred in the recovery of goods. The plaintiff is in the business of distribution of fast moving goods. It transports such goods by trucks which are predominantly hired from other companies. According to plaintiff it entered into an oral agreement with the first defendant through the fourth defendant its employee for the provision of trucks. In terms of the agreement the first defendant was to transport 1 260 boxes of cooking oil from plaintiff’s warehouse in Mutare to... More
The plaintiff, a company with limited liability and carrying on business in Harare, was desirous of procuring two luxury vehicles. It sourced these vehicles from a supplier in London, England, going by the trade name of Stenham Global Services Limited. It obtained proforma invoices for the two purchases. On the invoices, the buyer was indicated as ZIMOCO LIMITED and the plaintiff as the consignee. It is common cause that armed with the invoices, the plaintiff approached the defendant with a request that it arranges for the payment due in terms of each invoice. More
The plaintiff issued summons against the defendant claiming payment of a sum of US$46 333-35 together with interest thereon at the prescribed rate from 1 September 2008 to the date of payment in full, and costs of suit. More
The applicants entered into a lease finance facility with the respondents. They fell into arrears in terms of the lease agreement. On 10 September 2014, the respondents obtained a default judgment against the applicants for the payment of $88 225.14 together with interest at the rate of 25% per annum. In terms of the order, specified equipment was also declared executable. In October 2014, which was after the default judgment had been obtained, the applicants made a payment of US$50 000.00 and subsequently made another payment on 3 and 4 March 2015 totalling US$38 000.00. They therefore argue that save... More
