The applicant seeks payment of US$ 121 115-00 together with interest at the rate of 20% per annum from 1 July 2011 to the date of full payment, costs on the scale of legal practitioner and client and collection commission to the extent permitted by the Law Society of Zimbabwe by-laws. Its cause of action is based on the acknowledgement of debt and payment arrangement signed by the defendant and witnessed by Richard Kavaza, the applicant’s credit controller on 1 July 2011. The application was filed on 26 August 2011. More
: This matter was brought before me as an urgent application on 07 and 16 May 2013.
After hearing arguments on the matter I concluded that the urgency of the matter had not been fully established and I therefore declined to treat the matter as urgent and ordered the applicant to pay costs. More
The relevant facts are as follows; - first applicant (“Savechem”) and first respondent (“Masimba”) are entities registered per the laws of Zimbabwe. Their further particulars or characteristics as commercial entities were not furnished. The parties concluded a lease agreement sometime in May 2019.
[3] In terms thereof, Savechem occupied Masimba`s premises known as 56A Main Street, Bindura. Second respondent, Mr. Rubengo who is a director of Savechem, bound himself as surety for the due performance by Savechem of its tenancy obligations. More
The second applicant is the Managing Director of the first applicant. The first applicant is a Laboratory established in terms of the laws of Zimbabwe and both applicants deal with the people’s health and lives. The first respondent (HEALTH PROFESSIONS AUTHORITY-ZIMBABWE) (HPA) is a statutory body created in terms of the Health Professions Act [Chapter 27.19] and regulates the affairs of the applicants. The second respondent is an official cited in in his official capacity as the person entrusted with execution of the order by the first respondent. More
This is a matter within which the plaintiff is claiming damages for loss of support owing to the death of her husband at the defendant’s instance. On 23 December 2016, the plaintiff’s husband was electrocuted and died after he unwittingly stepped on live electricity wiring. The wiring had been left exposed by the defendant company and thus posed a danger to any person who would have used the public path it lay across. After the defendant’s accident, the defendant’s employees were forced to switch off wires from their nearby electricity feeder station in order to remove the deceased’s body from... More
