The factual background of this matter is that applicant a legal practitioner, practising with Shava Law Chambers felt strongly aggrieved by an incident that happened to him on the 5th July 2023 which then prompted him to file this application. According to him, a certain person known as Tinashe Mazodze called at his Law Chambers where he indicated he wanted to consult him on some legal issues. Applicant was not present at the office, but that notwithstanding the said Tinashe insisted that it is applicant and no other legal practitioner whom he wanted to see. It was then that a... More
The plaintiff company issued summons against the defendant company on 25 November 2009. It claimed the payment of US$ 2 957.10 being the cost of the outstanding bags of mealie meal delivered to the defendant; interest at the prescribe rate from the date of the issue of summons to the date of payment in full and costs at the legal practitioner and client scale. The defendant contested the matter. More
The applicant has approached this court in terms of r 31(3), seeking the dismissal of the respondent’s action in case HC 783/22, for want of prosecution. The application is premised upon the failure of the respondent to file his replication to the defendant’s plea, and to take any further steps to prosecute his matter, in the main action thereafter.
The facts and the inaction of the respondent to file further pleadings are not in dispute. It is common cause that, the applicant and the respondent were once co-directors in the same Company, sharing the same business premises. It is alleged... More
On 29 November 2021 my brother Musithu J granted the following provisional order in the urgent application proceedings.
“It is ordered that:
Pending the determination of this matter on the return day, the applicant is granted the following interim relief:
1. The operation of the circular resolution executed by the first and second respondents dated 1st October 2021 authorising the placing of Adlecraft Investments (Private) Limited under voluntary business rescue proceedings is suspended.2. The respondents are hereby interdicted from implementing the terms of that resolution.” More
This matter was brought as an urgent chamber application seeking a spoliation order following what applicants alleged was forced eviction from premises known as Stand 14432 Salisbury Township which they were letting from the respondent, the National Railways of Zimbabwe, a parastatal. I heard the matter on the merits having made a decision at the hearing that the argument that the matter was not urgent because the applicants had failed to take action between the 29th of December and the re-filing of the application was not sustainable. More
