In this matter the plaintiff, by way of a provisional sentence summons, claims payment of US$55 895.21 together with interest calculated at 5% per annum.
The claim is based on an account reconciliation, an alleged written acknowledgement of debt, a letter from Lunar Chickens and a letter from first defendant’s legal practitioners. The defendant raises the defence, inter alia, that it paid the debt to plaintiff’s creditor. For this reason, the first defendant argues that provisional sentence must be refused with costs on a punitive scale. More
When this court application was filed it was erroneously filed as “case number HCA 43/09” meaning that it was an appeal case in the Appellate Division of the High Court. That was an error.
The correct position was that the applicant was seeking condonation for the late filing of his review application.
When the applicant appeared in court with his legal practitioner Miss N. Ndlovu on 14 October 2014 he withdrew the matter and tendered wasted costs. He was however ordered to pay costs on an attorney and client scale due to the manner he handled his case. More
The applicant filed and argued this bail application as a self-actor. The arresting detail and the investigating officer adduced evidence for the respondent. The former opposed the applicant’s release on bail while the latter consented to the same. Counsel for the respondent had filed a written response opposing the application. However, in light of the testimony of the investigating officer, the respondent’s representative, in her oral submissions, consented to the release of the applicant on bail pending trial. More
This is an application for condonation of late filing of an application for rescission of the default judgment against the applicant. The default judgment was granted on 24 February 2016 under cover of case number 2906/15. More
At the hearing of these matters Mr L. Musika applied to have the two cases consolidated since the facts, issues and legal principles to be argued are the same. Mr Ndou for the applicants agreed and both cases were consolidated. The result is that I will deliver one judgment instead of two.
The background in respect of each case is as follows:
1. Ex-Sergeant Mafenya
Both parties have not divulged what caused the applicants’ discharge by the 1st respondent. Be that as it may, on 7 November 2016, applicant received a radio communication from the 1st respondent to the effect... More
