Matiyashe, for the respondent
DUBE-BANDA J: Before me is an urgent chamber application. This application was launched in this court on 17thJune 2021. It was placed before me and I directed that it be served on the respondents together with a notice of set down for 2nd July 2021. The application is opposed by the 1strespondent. The 2nd and 3rdrespondents are cited in their official capacities because the implementation of the order sought by the applicant, if granted may require their services. The applicant seeks the following relief: More
This matter appeared before me on 18 June 2020, Ms B Rupapa appeared for the applicant whilst Messrs B Ndlovu and T Kuchenga appeared for 1st and 2nd respondents respectively. After hearing the parties on that day, the parties requested for and an order to the following effect was made by consent that;
(1) The matter be postponed to 25 June 2020 at 1000 hours.
(2) The parties are directed to file further submissions and documents, if any, refered to in the submissions.
(3) 1st respondent is directed not to bar 2nd respondent from delivering coal to applicant pending the... More
It is common cause that there is a business relationship between applicant and 2nd respondent. Applicant and 1st respondent have a contract for the supply of coal to applicant. On the other hand applicant has a similar contract with 2nd respondent. First respondent has a contract with 2nd respondent for the mining of coal destined for the foreign market. There is a clause in this contract which bars the 2nd respondent from unconditionally selling coal to the applicant. More
At the close of the plaintiff’s case Mr Kwenda, who appeared for the 1st defendant moved the court to grant absolution from the instance which application was strenuously opposed by Mr Majoko for the plaintiffs.
Mr Kwenda’s application was anchored on a number of factors which I must confess completely took the court by surprise especially given the nature of the joint pre-trial conference minute filed by the parties in this court on 31 May 2017.
The 1st defendant’s counsel attacked what he perceived to be the shortcomings in the pleadings filed by the plaintiffs, the alleged lack of locus... More
This matter came before me as an opposed matter. I dismissed the application with costs and below are my reasons for the dismissal.
The first applicant contends that he is the son of the late Philip Mpofu. The 2nd to 4th applicants are his siblings whom he says have granted him authority to act on their behalf. Second applicant filed his own founding affidavit associating himself with the contents therein. The 3rd and 4th applicants’ Powers of Attorney granted to 1st applicant are filed of record.
The fist respondent is the estate of the late Joel Mpofu who was his... More
