DUBE-BANDA J: This matter was set down on 11 March 2021 in the unopposed motion court. When it was called, Mr Ngwenya, counsel for the applicant then, submitted that the papers were in order, and prayed that the provisional order be confirmed in terms of the draft order. I raised a query that the matter was opposed, and it could not be dealt with in the unopposed motion court. I noted from the file that this matter had previously been set-down in the unopposed motion court, and was removed from the roll. Counsel seemed to agree that indeed the matter... More
This is an application wherein applicant seeks the following relief:
“1. The 1st respondent’s action instituted by summons under case HC 411/13 be and is hereby dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous and vexatious.
2. The 1st respondent shall pay the costs of suit on an attorney and client scale.” More
1. This is an urgent application for an interim interdict pending a decision in a hearing on the return date. The applicant seeks a provisional order couched in the following terms:
Terms of the final order sought
That you show cause to this Honourable Court if any, why a final order should not be made in the following terms:
i. Respondent and its members, associates and nominees be and (sic) hereby interdicted from interrupting and disrupting the applicant’s celebration of “Isithembiso” ceremony for all time to come without an order of a competent court.
ii. Respondent to pay the costs. More
This matter came as an urgent chamber application. In a 66 page application, applicant in short/simpler terms averred that it and 1st respondent entered into a Joint Venture Agreement (J.V.A.) for the purpose of operating a safari business among other objectives.
Applicant further averred that first respondent breached the terms of the Joint Venture Agreement and was given due written notice of intention to terminate the agreement should it (respondent) fail, refuse or neglect to remedy the breach. The breach was not remedied and the Joint Venture Agreement was terminated. Despite termination, 1st respondent allegedly continued to be in occupation... More
TAKUVA J: The applicants have approached this court on a certificate of urgency seeking the following interim relief.
Final order sought
That you show cause why a final order should not be made in the following terms:
1. The provisional order be and is hereby confirmed.
2. That 1st respondent’s failure to ensure an adequate and consistent supply of clean and safe water to Mkoba be and is hereby declared to be a violation of the applicant’s right to clean safe and portable water protected under section 77(a) of the Constitution.
3. That the 2nd and 3rd respondents’ failure to... More
