This is an application for dismissal of an application for want of prosecution in terms of Rule 236 (3) (b) of the High Court Rules 1971 (the rules).
The history is as follows. Respondent who is a sitting councilor in 3rd applicant’s Council filed an application for cession of his right, title and interest in respect of a stand he alleged to belong to him. The application was filed under cover of case number HC 2750/19 on the 19th of October 2017 and applicants filed their notice of opposition and opposing affidavits on the 3rd of November 2017. These documents... More
This trial commenced on 17 May 2012. After legal procrastination of over six (6) years the matter has finally come to its conclusion. These slow motion trials should be discouraged. The parties must endeavour to bring the matters to expeditious conclusion. In its pre-trial conference minute plaintiff on the one hand stated that it anticipated the duration of the trial to be four (4) days. On the other hand the defendant indicated that the trial would take about two (2) days. Unfortunately the trial took far much longer than what the parties anticipated. More
The applicant (“Makeh Enterprises”) and the respondent (“Stuart Pumps”) entered into an agreement of lease sometime in 2021, which lease still subsists. The respondent accrued rental arrears in the sum of US$ 184 000. The respondent has been failing or neglecting to settle the debt. The parties have previously been involved in a long history of litigation pertaining the settlement of the debt. More
On 18 December 2015, the applicant filed an application for rescission of judgment in this Court. The application was opposed by the respondent.On the date of the hearing and before the application could be heard on merits, the respondent raised preliminary points and urged the court to make a specific finding that the applicant’s case was not properly before the court, and therefore sought its dismissal on that point.
The point in limine raised by the respondent’s counsel concerned the interpretation of order 9 Rule 63(1) of the High Court Rules, 1971 which is framed as follows:
“63 court may... More
This is an appeal against the decision of the Magistrate’s Court Bulawayo given on the 17th of July 2018. The appellant raises 4 grounds on this appeal namely that:-1. The court a quo grossly erred and misdirected itself in finding that improper pressure was exerted on the respondent into signing the acknowledgement of debt.
2. The court a quo further erred and grossly misdirected itself in holding that the audit process conducted by PNA Chartered Accountants shambolic and could not be relied upon.
3. The court a quo further erred and grossly misdirected itself in failing to find and uphold... More
