This is a matter in which a pre-trial conference was held between the two parties
The main dispute between the parties was settled but the bone of contention between the parties was the question of costs. More
The applicant National Railways of Zimbabwe is a statutory corporate body established in terms of the Railways Act [Chapter 13:09]. The first respondent Patnah Trading (Pvt) Ltd is a duly incorporated and registered company in accordance with the laws of Zimbabwe. The second respondent City of Harare is a body corporate established in terms of the City of Harare (Private) Act, [Chapter 29:04]. More
This is an application for rescission of default judgment. It is opposed by the respondent on the basis that it is erroneous, frivolous and an abuse of court process. The default judgment was granted upon failure to enter appearance to defend by the applicant upon service of the summons and declaration. The applicant denies that it was in wilful default on the basis that the summons were served at an address where it is not located and upon a person named Mrs E Alleck who is not one of its employees. The applicant says it became aware of the application... More
These are confirmatory proceedings for a provisional order for winding up of the first respondent granted by judgment of TAGU J on 30 January 2019. The provisional order is couched in these terms:
“It is hereby ordered that:
1. The first respondent, Capital Bank Corporation Limited be and is hereby provisionally wound up, pending the granting of an order in terms of paragraph 3 hereof or the discharge of this order.
2. Mr John Mafungei Chikura of Deposit Protection Corporation Evelyn House 26 Fife Ave/Corner Blackistone Street, Harare, be and is hereby appointed as the first respondent’s Provisional Liquidator with... More
Fifth respondent took a special plea to plaintiff`s claim. Plaintiff objected to the special plea on the basis that it was in breach of r 42 (8) of the High Court Rules 2021. Indeed, the special plea was not filed concomitantly with the defendant`s heads of argument as required by r 42 (8).
This defect was brought to defendant`s attention on 22 November 2021 in the plaintiff`s replication as well as heads of argument responding to defendant`s special plea. Defendant responded to this letter and replication some forty-three (43) or so days later through a letter, by his legal practitioners,... More
