The plaintiff in this matter, Robson Chapfika, is a businessman and finance consultant. He claims from the defendant, the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe, specific sums of money sounding in various convertible currencies and equating to circa US$450,000.00, being 10% of the illegally exported amounts that he avers were identified or recovered by dint of his intervention as a so-called whistleblower. The defendant denies the plaintiff’s role in the identification or recovery of these amounts and, in any event, it disputes the legal basis of his claim. More
The background to this matter is largely common cause. The applicant obtained an order this court on 23 January 2008 in which he was awarded payment of;
(a) PB 63 750.00 as replacement value for his damaged vehicle.
(b) ZWD$83 717.09 for medical expenses.
(c) BP12 000 000.00 for car hire charges.
(d) ZWS 2 000 000.00 for pain and suffering.
(e) ZW$ 850 000.00 for disability
(f) ZW$1 000 000.00 for future medical expenses ZW$2 000 000.00 More
This was an urgent chamber application. Upon reading it my instinctive reaction was to frown upon the notion that all other business in the busy schedule of the judiciary could be suspended over a mere school leavers’ dance or party.At first impression it seemed such aninconsequential pre-occupation which should not warrant the attention of the machinery of State. However, for a school and its student body the dance must be a serious matter. Suchan event may be an integral part of its life and for its students as well. For sixth formers in particular an event like that, I believe,... More
The applicant, a legal entity which is registered in terms of the laws of Zambia applied to review the decision of the respondent, a corporate body which is established in accordance with the Revenue Authority Act of Zimbabwe. Its grounds of review are three. They are that:
i)the respondent’s forfeiture of its techno mobile phones is grossly irregular on account of the allegation that the respondent failed to take into account the fact that the applicant was not involved in the violation of the Customs and Excise Act [Chapter 23:02] (“the Act”)
ii)the respondent’s forfeiture of the applicant’s mobile phones... More
