After hearing counsel we allowed the appeal on the turn. Counsel for the appellant has requested that we provide our reasons in writing for this decision in light of the peculiar facts of this case and its wider impact on similar situations for the issues arising from a charge under s 79 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23](“the Criminal Law Code”). More
The applicant has approached this court for an order in the following terms:-
1. It is declared that the lease agreement between the applicant and respondent dated 16 April 2007 in respect of 5 Martin Drive Msasa does not confer upon respondent any option to renew the lease.
2. The respondent shall pay the costs of this application in the event of it being opposed by the respondent More
This is a doubled barreled application for condonation for the late filing of an application for rescission of judgment as well as the actual application for rescission of the default judgment in question. Inevitably, the outcome of the first determines whether the second will proceed or not. Both applications are opposed. I dismissed bothex-tempore and these are the reasons following the request by the applicants. The application is best appreciated within the context of its brief factual background. The summarized narrative is that applicants, a duly incorporated Company, in the fuel business entered into a fuel deal with the respondent.... More
This is an application for a spoliation order. The bare bones of the matter are these:
The first respondent owed the applicant US$149 000-00. That debt has since ballooned to US$200 000-00. On 31 January, 2012 the applicant and first respondent concluded a compromise agreement in an endeavour to restructure the debt. The salient terms of the agreement were that effective 1 February, 2012, the applicant would assume the management of the retail fore court of the service station at stand 96A Norton Road, Norton which is under lease by the first respondent; the applicant would pay the first respondent... More
The record shows that on 29 March 2010 the plaintiff obtained a default judgment in terms of the above claim. The default order was, however, rescinded on 2 June 2010.
The defendant also has a claim in reconvention. More
