The plaintiff claims from the defendants jointly and severally the one paying the other to be absolved, the sum of US$98 239-64. The plaintiff claims that during the period extending from 20 August 2009 to 30 September 2010, it sold and delivered goods worth US$98 239-64 to the first defendant. It claims that on 11 August 2010 the second defendant bound itself jointly and severally as a surety in solidum and co-principal debtor with the first defendant to repay, on demand by the plaintiff, all sums of money that were outstanding as at that date or became due and payable... More
On the 19th July 2017 after hearing submissions by the parties I granted the application. The reasons for my decision were as follows:
The applicants approached this court on a certificate of urgency seeking the stay of execution of a provisional order the first respondent obtained in circumstances applicants described as improper. More
This was an application for rescission of a default judgment in terms of rule 449 (1) (a) of the High Court Rules, 1971. On 7 September 2018 I heard the matter and delivered an ex tempore judgment. I have now been asked for the written reasons and these are they.
The facts of the matter were as follows. The respondent filed an urgent chamber application under HC 4239/17on 12 May 2017. On the very day the respondent served the application on the applicants who then engaged their lawyers. Upon getting instructions the applicants’ lawyers wrote to the respondent’s lawyers on... More
The second and third applicants are shareholders of the first applicant, a company duly incorporated in terms of the laws of Zimbabwe. The second applicant is also the Managing Director of the first applicant. The first respondent is a company duly incorporated in terms of the laws of Zimbabwe. The second respondent is a company duly incorporated in Mauritius. The third respondent is a company duly incorporated in terms of the laws of Zimbabwe. More
Applicant is seeking rescission of a judgment by Consent in terms of 49 r 449 (1) (c) which provides as follows:
“449 Correction, variation and rescission of judgment and orders.
(1) The court or a judge may, in addition to any power it or he may have, mero motu, or upon the application of any party affected, correct, rescind or vary any judgment or order-
(a) ………………..
(b)
(c) that was granted as a result of a mistake common to the parties” More
