This is an application for amendment of a plea brought in terms of Order 20 r 132 of the High Court Rules, 1971. The applicants seek to amend their plea. More
The plaintiff’s claim against the defendants is for breach of a Facultative Reinsurance Guarantee Agreement by the defendants. It seeks payment from the firstto third defendants in the sums of $ 691 892.21, $345946.12 and $ 518 919.18 respectively.
The plaintiff’s claim is based on the following synopsis. The plaintiff issued a payment guarantee in favour of the Zimbabwe Fertilizer Company Ltd (ZFC) in terms of which ZFC agreed to supply tobacco farmers who were members of the Zimbabwe Progressive Tobacco Farmers’ Union (ZPFTU) with tobacco inputs for the 2011 to 2012 farming season. This was on the understanding that... More
In this matter I have to exercise the court’s powers to rescind its order. The background facts are as follows:
1. On 2 November, 2016, the applicant filed an application for bail pending appeal following his conviction by the Regional Magistrate Eastern Division on a charge of rape as defined in s 65 (1) of the Criminal Law Codification and Reform Act, [Chapter 9:23]. He was sentenced to 12 years imprisonment with 3 years thereof suspended on the usual conditions of good behaviour. More
The background facts are that in 1997, the applicants were suspended from work without pay pending an application to the Ministry of Labour for the dismissal from work after they participated in a collective job action. A Labour Relations Officer ordered reinstatement without loss of salary and benefits. The respondent appealed against that decision to a Senior Labour Relations officer. The appeal was successful and the Senior Labour Relations Officer granted permission for the applicants’ dismissal but ordered the respondent to pay applicants their terminal benefits within 15 days of receipt of the determination. The applicants ultimately appealed to the... More
The plaintiff’s pleadings are a mess. They do not comply with the strict requirements of the High Court rules. The face of the summons does not identify the 13 others. The declaration does not do so either. In addition it does not comply with the rules of court. It contains extraneous information and is argumentative in nature. A letter of suspension, three death certificates, a burial order and the Supreme Court judgment SC 66/02 concerning the plaintiff and the second defendant are attached to the declaration. It is in the format of a founding affidavit rather than a declaration. When... More
