: This is an urgent application to review the proceedings conducted by the respondents on 6 and 7 March 2006 that resulted in the imprisonment of the applicant for a sentence imposed upon him in April 1992. More
The applicant has applied for leave to amend its summons and declaration issuedout of this court in case no HC 9631/16 on an undisclosed date in the year 2016. The original summons and declaration were not submitted with this application. The Court can only rely on what the applicant says is contained in the summons and declaration to be amended. Applicant says in the year 2016 it sued for an order setting aside a certain Surety Bond No. 4250/11 registered against its immovable property held under Deed of Transfer no. 6844/2004 on the grounds that the bond is invalid and... More
This matter was initially placed before me under a certificate of urgency. As the final and interim relief sought on the provisional order were the same, I wrote an endorsement on the face of the application querying the manner in which the relief had been framed. The letter of explanation was not placed before me and it was not until after some months that the matter was then brought to my attention. In the event, it was set down before me in chambers to be argued as an urgent application. The respondents indicated a desire to file affidavits in opposition... More
On 9 April 2021 the Plaintiff issued a summons out of this court claiming (a) An order for payment in the sum of US$ 135 931.36 or its ZWL$ equivalent at the prevailing rate on the date of payment being arrear rentals owed to the Plaintiff by the Defendant.
(b) An order for the cancellation of the lease agreement between the parties.
(c) An order for ejectment of the Defendant and anyone claiming occupation through him.
(d) An order for holding over damages at the rate of USD$ 433.00 per day starting from the 1st of May 2021 to the... More
It is not the function of the courts to make a contract for the parties or to rewrite a contract entered into between the parties. Neither is it open to the courts to excuse any party to a contract from the imperatives of the contract they have freely and voluntarily accepted on the basis that it has become too onerous or oppressive. In addition, it is not allowed to read into the contract some implied or tacit term that is in direct conflict with its express terms. See Magodora & Ors v Care International Zimbabwe 2014 (1) ZLR 397 (S)... More
