1st and 2nd applicants were arrested by the police and arraigned before the court of the Regional Magistrate on a charge of smuggling as defined in s182 of the Customs and Excise Act (Chapter 23:03). The 3rd applicant is a juristic person and South African registered company which employs 1st and 2nd applicants. The two who were represented by their legal practitioners of record pleaded not guilty but were convicted of the offence charged and sentenced to undergo five years of imprisonment. The goods and heavy truck were forfeited to the State. More
This is an application for the placement of the first respondent under Provisional Judicial Management in terms of section 207 as read with section 206 (g) of the Companies Act (Chapter 24:03). More
This application is for an extension of time within which to file a notice of opposition in case number HC 2301/19. The order sought is couched in the following terms:
1. The applicant’s late filing of the notice of opposition be and is hereby condoned.
2. The applicant is hereby required to file and serve its notice of opposition on the 2nd respondent’s court application for review within 48 hours of this order.
3. No order as to costs.
The application is opposed.
During hearing, Mr Sibanda, counsel for the applicant after trying to argue in support of this application,... More
In this matter the applicant filed an urgent chamber application asking for the placement of the 1st respondent in provisional liquidation in terms of section 207 as read with section 206 of the Companies Act Chapter 24:03.
Section 206 provides for circumstances under which a company may be wound up by a court and section 207 provides for how the petition for winding up is presented. Section 206 (g) provides that a company may be wound up by the court if the court is of the opinion that it is just and equitable that the company should be wound up.... More
MOYO J: The plaintiffs in this matter issued summons against the defendant claiming from the defendant a sum of $24 380-00 being a balance due in respect of funds that allegedly plaintiffs invested with the defendant around the month of January 2014. Plaintiffs claim that the investment agreement was mutually agreed between the parties and has since been cancelled by the plaintiffs rendering the balance of the invested sum due to them. They have also claimed costs at an attorney and client scale. More
