The plaintiff’s claim against the defendant is for the cancellation of the verbal lease agreement in respect of two tennis courts situate at Alexandra Club, eviction of the defendant therefrom, holding over damages of $460 per month from August, 2010 to date of eviction plus costs of suit More
The applicants` counsel failed to capitalise on the facility provided by rule 53 (2) of the High Court (Commercial Division) Rules SI 123-20 (“the Commercial Court Rules”) to manage postponements. As a result, applicants failed to meet a set down commitment at 12:00 noon on 27 June 2024.I proceeded to strike its matter off the roll with costs. Applicants had in that matter sought an order to place respondent under corporate rescue in terms of section 124 of the Insolvency Act [Chapter 6:07]. More
This is an urgent chamber application in which the applicant seeks a provisional order in the following terms;-
“2. INTERIM RELIEF
2.1 Pending the final determination of the action in case No. HC 8403/12, the Applicant is granted the following relief;-
a) That the first, second, third, fourth, fifth and sixth Respondent be and are hereby
interdicted from signing or processing transfer papers to pass ownership of stand 75 Avondale Extension 2, measuring 1980 square metres from Total
Communication Media (Pvt) Ltd into the 3rd Respondent’s name.
b) The first Respondent be and is hereby ordered to place a caveat... More
Legal practitioners should keep up to date with and give cognizance to rules of the courts. They should not waste the court’s time by bringing ludicrous applications before the court. The determination of cases should not be slowed or deferred unessentially because a legal practitioner has failed to assimilate the rules. This was the case in this matter. More
