The plaintiff issued summons against the defendant claiming payment of the sum of US$2 800.00 being the amount due and owing in terms of an acknowledgment of debt signed by the defendant on 13 July 2009 in terms of which the defendant undertook to make full payment to the plaintiff by 30 September 2009. Despite demand the defendant has not met this obligation. The plaintiff also claims interest at the rate of 5% per annum calculated from the date of service of summons and costs of suit on the legal practitioner – client scale. More
The appellant appeared before a Harare Magistrate facing a charge of contravening s 157 (1) (A) ofthe Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Cap 9:23], (hereinafter referred to as the Code). The appellant was found in possession of dagga weighing 2 kgs hidden in a maize field. He pleaded guilty to the charge and was sentenced to 18 months imprisonment of which 6 months imprisonment was suspended for 5 years on condition that he does not during that period commit any offence involving unlawful possession or use of dangerous drugs for which he is sentenced to imprisonment without the option... More
The appellant was convicted of corruptly concealing from a principal, a personal interest in a transaction as defined in s 173 (1)(a)(i) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act, [Chapter 9:23] (“the Code”). He was sentenced to 3 years imprisonment of which 2 years imprisonment was suspended on the usual conditions of good behaviour, to leave an effective sentence of 1 year imprisonment. He appealed against both conviction and sentence. More
On 26 June 2022 we dismissed the appellants appeal against the refusal by the lower court of rescission for default judgment on the basis that none of the material requirements for rescission had been met by the appellants. The delay was inordinate, the explanation for the delay was unsatisfactory and the prospects of succeeds on the merits were in our view nil.
The background facts against which rescission had been refused by the lower court were these. The appellants and the respondent went onto a joint venture to operate a college. Irreconcilable differences arose rendering it impossible to continue operating... More
