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
MUSITHU J: Before the court is an application for rescission of a default judgment granted by this court in HCH 1748/24 on 19 June 2024. The application was made in terms of r 27(1) of the High Court rules, 2021. The first applicant’s founding affidavit was deposed to by the third applicant in his capacity as the authorised representative of the first applicant. The application was opposed by the first respondent. A notice of filing was issued and filed on behalf of the second and third respondents by the Civil Division of the Attorney General’s office. They indicated that they... 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
