On 4 September 2013, this matter was on the unopposed roll for motion court. The applicant appeared in person. There was no appearance by any of the respondents. Incourt I raised three concerns with the applicant:what really was the nature of the application as the papers before me were incoherent and seemed to disclose no cause of action?Who were all those parties cited as respondents as none of them had properly been described in the application? And had service been properly effected on the respondents since from the applicant’s affidavits of service it appeared that the documents had simply been... More
The applicant is the owner of a certain piece of immovable property known as Number 1212 Marlborough, Township of Marlborough situate in the district of Salisbury. He mortgaged the property to the first respondent in respect of a loan extended to the fifth respondent by the first respondent. More
The applicant applies for bail pending appeal. The applicant was found in possession of 1,35 grams of gold valued at US$49-69. He was a first offender who pleaded guilty to the offence. The State was not opposed to bail and conceded that the sentence imposed is harsh and did not support it. The court considers that the concession is not proper. The court is not bound by the concession of the State counsel and will only accede to such concession where it is properly made. The applicant was charged of possessing gold without a licence in terms of s 3(1)... More
These are reasons for dismissing this application for condonation for late noting of an appeal against both conviction and sentence, extension of time within which to appeal and leave to prosecute the appeal in person.
The applicant was convicted of two counts of robbery of motor vehicles as defined in s 126 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23] as read with s 2 of the Road Traffic Act [Chapter 13:11]. More
The applicants seek the setting aside of a judgment granted against them in default on the 18November 2020. The application was made in terms of r449(1)(a) of the High Court Rules 1971 (the rules). The order sought is couched as follows:
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. The default judgment granted under HC6577/20 on the 18th of November 2020 be and is hereby rescinded.
2. Respondent shall pay the Applicant’s costs of suit on the higher scale of attorney and client.”
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The applicants are the principals of a mining syndicate called Two Giants Mining Syndicate operating at reserve... More
