The abovementioned four matters were referred to me for dealingat one and the same time. Ongoing through the records which relate to each of them, I remained alive to the fact that, whilst the applicants are different and have, accordingly, filed their respective applications with the court separately, everything else which relates to each of the four cases is substantially one and the same thing. More
Plaintiff issued summons against the defendants for the recovery of a debt in the sum USD81 881.42 which it claims is due and owing to it. Plaintiff prayed for an order in the following terms:-
i) Judgment in the sum of US$81 881.42 being the capital sum owing under a Trade Credit Facility Agreement between plaintiff and first defendant dated 13 January 2011 for goods and commodities supplied and delivered at the instance and specific request of the first defendant, the sum of which has remained due despite due and proper demand.
ii) An order declaring specially executable, the immovable... More
On the day of hearing this matter, I issued an order in the following terms:
“1. The decision of the 2nd Respondent of dismissing the Applicants’ application for recusal in Case No. CRB 12586/15 be and is hereby set aside.
2. That the proceedings in case number CRB 12586/15 commence de novo before another Magistrate.
3. That there be no order as to costs.” More
The applicants’ journey to justice is long and arduous. Their case passed through the hands of not less than six (6) judges of this court. I am the seventh in the queue of judges. As I write this judgment, the case is not coming to finality soon. I am dealing with an interlocutory matter. Two or more judges may deal with the rest of the case. When they will do so will depend on the outcome of this judgment. More
On 27 February 2012 the applicant filed a court application in terms of r 233(3) against the respondent seeking to evict it from number 29 Craster Road, Southerton, Harare. The application was served on the respondent on 28 February 2012. In terms of the rules of court the respondent had ten days within which to respond. The dies inducae expired on 13 March without any response from the respondent. The respondent however filed its notice of opposition a day later on 14 March 2012. More
