At the outset of the hearing of this appeal on 18 March 2021, counsel for the respondent, Mr Nyahunzvi, who had not yet filed the respondent’s response raised the issue of the jurisdiction of this court to deal with the matter since the judgment appealed against pertained to proceedings held at Gweru Magistrates Court. Mr Nyahunzvi submitted that the appeal should have been noted at High Court Bulawayo station because that is where Gweru Magistrates Court matters which arise for the High Court determination should be channelled. The appellant in this case was denied bail by the magistrate sitting at... More
The plaintiff sued, the defendant by summons action for 2 claims arising out of 2 separate agreements allegedly entered into between the parties about year 2000. The first claim was for payment of a sum of $420 000-00 in Zimbabwean currency withheld by the defendant as penalty at the termination of a Pension Fund Administration Mandate given to the defendant and, related to that, payment of the sum of $83 127 870 000-00 as damages arising out of the penalty levied by the defendant for the termination of the mandate aforesaid. More
this is a landlord and tenant dispute. Plaintiff entered into a written lease agreement with an entity identified therein as “Treat and Company”, on 1 November 2020. It is not in dispute that an entity named Treat and Company (Pvt) Ltd, the present objector, took occupation of the premises known as Shop Number 5, Rolf Valley Shopping Centre, in Rolf Valley, Harare at a monthly rental of US$2,600.
[7] Plaintiff avers that defendant defaulted in rental payments for the period April to December 2021 accumulating arrears in the sum of US$18,360. Plaintiff instituted present proceedings seeking a recovery of that... More
The plaintiff issued summons against the defendant on 31 November 2009 for the payment of US$37 873-10 arising from the sale and delivery of wheat feed and soya meal during the period extending from 3 July to 15 July 2009. The defendant admitted that payment in the sum claimed was outstanding. It, however, contested the matter on the ground that the plaintiff owed it a sum in excess of the claim by US$29 850-90 arising from overpayments made during the period 2 June to 7 July for the purchase of bulk (loose and not bagged) maize. It counterclaimed for the... More
