This is a contested application for leave to execute pending Appeal. In brief, there has been an ongoing legal battle between the applicant and first respondent over an immovable property, stand 295, Northwood Township 2 of Submenu, measuring 4049 square meters. The second and third respondents are only cited in their official capacities.
Applicant claims that he fully purchased the property from the respondents, sometime in 2013, but is being precluded from having undisturbed enjoyment of the same by the first respondent. First Respondent, on the other hand, is challenging the sale as fraudulent and unsanctioned, as he has always... More
This is an appeal against a judgment of the Magistrates Court (the court a quo) dismissing an application by the appellant for the correction of an order of that court.
The appeal is opposed by the respondent.
The material background facts to the matter are as follows: The appellant instituted a claim by way of summons against the respondent in the court a quo claiming payment of a sum of US$36 460.00 together with interest thereon at the prescribed rate, collection commission and attorney-client costs. More
In this action the agreed issues for determination are listed as
follows:-
“1. Whether or not there was a valid Agreement of Sale between the
plaintiff and the first defendant.
2. Whether or not the Agreement of Sale was void and contrary to
Section 44 of the Stamp Duties Act [Cap 23:09].
3. Whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to transfer of the property in
question.” More
There is a banker and client contractual relationship between the parties. The plaintiff (Ramatex) sued the defendant (ACL) for general damages in the sum of US$998 960.00. The circumstances giving rise to the claim are partly common cause. There are 3 issues identified and agreed to by the parties for determination at this trial. These are;
(a) Whether or not ACL submitted the application for the registration of Ramatex’s blocked funds on or before the 30 April 2019 deadline;
(b) Whether the registration of the legacy debt failed as a result of the late submission of the application of the... More
1.This is an appeal against conviction only.
2.The appellant was convicted of impersonating a public official in contravention of s179 (1)(a) of the Criminal Law Code and of reckless driving as defined in s53(2) of the Road Traffic Act [Chapter 13:11] (the Act).
3.The two issues that arise in this appeal are these. First, whether the trial court’s factual finding that the appellant impersonated a public official defies reason and common sense. Second, whether the appellant’s admitted manner of driving amounted to reckless driving.
4.We find against the appellant on both issues. Consequently, we uphold the judgement rendered a quo.... More
