The genesis of the application as gleamed from the founding affidavit deposed by Patrick Ndiweni is that the 1st respondent built a primary school and a hospital at Tshelanyemba communal lands which is in Kezi in Matobo District. The primary school was later closed in 1968. In 1981 the Government of Zimbabwe allowed for the setting up of a Secondary School within the premises of the now closed primary school. The 1st respondent, being a church, could not be funded by Government to establish the Secondary School, which was to be a boarding school. The church had no resources to... More
TAKUVA J: This is a court application for review. The relief sought is couched in the following terms;
“a) The purported Review Proceedings chaired by the 1st respondent in respect of a tender carried out by applicant under Tsholotsho North Hunting Concession Tender Number TRDC 03/19 be and are nullified.
b) The 3rd respondent shall pay the costs of this application.”
The grounds for this application are:
1. Gross irregularity in the proceedings.
2. Gross irrationality in the proceedings. More
This case arises from a construction dispute between Tzircalle Brothers (Private) Limited and the City of Bulawayo concerning a public infrastructure contract. The Applicant seeks to set aside an arbitral award made in favour of the First Respondent by Mr. M. Ncube N.O. on the grounds that it is contrary to the public policy of Zimbabwe, as provided under Article 34(2)(b)(ii) of the Model Law incorporated into the Arbitration Act [Chapter 7:15] More
In this matter, plaintiff issued summons on 15 September 2017 where it claimed:
(a) The refund of the US$21 700 being the balance of the purchase price for a stamp mill which the parties agreed that defendant would refund to the plaintiff following the parties’ agreement to cancel the contract of sale. Plaintiff had allegedly bought a stamp mill from the defendant.
(b) Costs of suit.
In its plea, defendant admitted that the parties entered into an agreement of sale, save to say that such agreement was oral. Defendant also admitted that plaintiff paid $26 700 towards the purchase price.... More
MABHIKWA J: In this matter, plaintiff issued summons on 15 September 2017 where it claimed:
(a) The refund of the US$21 700 being the balance of the purchase price for a stamp mill which the parties agreed that defendant would refund to the plaintiff following the parties’ agreement to cancel the contract of sale. Plaintiff had allegedly bought a stamp mill from the defendant.
(b) Costs of suit.
In its plea, defendant admitted that the parties entered into an agreement of sale, save to say that such agreement was oral. Defendant also admitted that plaintiff paid $26 700 towards the... More
