That this is an application made by two judgment debtors whose immovable property has been sold by the Sheriff in execution of a judgment of this court in terms of r 359 (8) of this court’s rules, is beyond any disputation because the application itself says so firstly in the Form 29 and secondly in para 6 of the first applicant’s founding affidavit dealing with the nature of the application. More
The applicant seeks relief by way of summary judgement. The relief sought is set out in the draft order accompanying the application as follows:
“1. Summary judgement be and is hereby granted.
2. Defendant shall pay the sum of US$33 000 to plaintiff or the equivalent thereof at the prevailing inter-bank rate made up as follows;
a) US$18 000 for explosives sold to the defendant.
b) US$14 500 being arrear rentals for mining compressors.
c) US$500.00 being damages for repair of the damaged compressor.
3. Interest thereon at the prescribed rate from the date of summons to date of full... More
1. This is an application for leave to appeal out of time and for a certificate to prosecute such appeal in person.
2. The applicant was, on 17 December 2020, convicted of robbery committed in aggravating circumstances as defined in s 126(1)(a) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23].
3. He was sentenced to 12 years imprisonment of which 2 years imprisonment was suspended for 5 years on the usual conditions of good behaviour. A further 1 year imprisonment was suspended on condition the applicant paid restitution.
4. The application was filed on 1 July 2022.
5.... More
On 1 February, 2010, the respondent purchased Plot number 236 which was 300 square metres through Nandi Properties who are cited as Estate Agents in the Agreement of Sale. The Agreement of Sale said the plot number was temporary and for identification purposes only and that the “Department of Physical Planning” was still working on allocating the stand numbers. More
1. This is an appeal against both conviction and sentence. The appellant and three others were convicted after a full trial on a charge of unlawful possession of raw unmarked ivory as defined in s 82(1) of Statutory Instrument 69/90 as read with s 128(b) of the Parks and Wildlife Act [Chapter 20:14]. Finding that there were no special circumstances, the trial court sentenced the four to the mandatory minimum nine years imprisonment. More
