The applicant applied for condonation of late filing of application for the review of two arbitration awards. The respondent opposed the application. I will deal with the matter under the subtitles “Delay” and “Prospects.”
Delay
The first award is dated 5th November 2013.
The second award is dated 22nd October 2014.
This application is dated 2nd December 2015.
Thus in respect of the first award the delay is two years. Whilst for the second award it is one year. I consider such delays as inordinate. A reasonable explanation is required for such delay. The explanation given was that the parties... More
This judgment is about a matter where a rule nisi was granted on
18 February 2014 in applicant’s favour and made returnable on
26 February 2014. On the 26 February 2014 the respondent was supposed to come and show cause why the rule nisi of 18 February 2014 should not be confirmed. More
This is an opposed application for condonation for non-compliance with the rules and reinstatement of an appeal which was deemed abandoned and dismissed for failure to enter into good and sufficient security for the respondent’s costs of appeal as required by r 55 (2) and (5) of the Supreme Court Rules, 2018. The application is made in terms of r 70 (2) of the Court Rules and was filed on 25 November 2024. More
This is an application for the condonation of late filing of a review application. Background to the matter is that the applicant employee approached a labour officer in a labour dispute pitting him and the 1st respondent employer. The proceedings before the labour officer culminated into a ruling which was taken before the labour court and confirmed on 8 March 2018. The employee now seeks to have the labor officer before the proceedings reviewed citing what styles irregularities besetting the process which led to the decision which was confirmed on 8 March 2018. The employer is opposed to the condonation... More
In this urgent chamber application the applicant seeks an order in the following terms:
INTERIM RELIEF
Pending finalization of this matter, an interim order is hereby granted on the following terms: More
This is an application to compel the 1st respondent to pass transfer of an immovable property commonly known as Lot 1 of stand 147, Prospect, Harare. More
This is an application for quantification of damages pursuant to an order by the Supreme Court in the case of Zimnat Life Assurance Limited v George Dikinya SC 30-10 whose paragraph 1 reads as follows:
“1. The order of the court a quo is amended to read:
‘The appellant is to be reinstated to his former position as managing director of ZIMNAT with no loss of salary or other benefits and in the event that reinstatement is no longer possible the appellant is to be paid such damages as may be agreed between the parties or that failing, as may... More
A litigant who applies for the removal of the bar which operates against him admits the simple fact that he violated the rules(s) of court. His application for upliftment of the bar is, to all intents and purposes, a motion by him for condonation for his unwholesome conduct. He is, therefore, expected to be candid with the court, to give plausible reasons for his failure to comply with the rules of court and to place the court into his confidence in his effort to justify the condonation which he is moving the court to grant to him. More
The plaintiff seeks a default judgment against the defendant under circumstances I shall outline below for payment of US$37 914. 16, interest, costs and collection commission. More
: On 22 April 2013 the applicant applied for bail pending trial. I dismissed the application the following day giving my reasons ex tempo. The applicant has requested for written reasons for my decision. These are they:- More
This is an opposed application in which the four applicants seek to set aside a company director change form (Form CR14) filed with the fifth respondent (Registrar of Companies) in respect of Retreat Farm (Private) Limited (“the company”). The first and second applicants (Messrs. G.G.W. Kileff and P.S.W. Kileff) are the founding directors of the company. The third and fourth applicants are family trusts established to hold the shares in the company. The impugned CR14, lodged on 18 December 2015, removed the first and second applicants as directors and reflected the first to fourth respondents as the More
A trustee’s duties and powers are fiduciary in nature, hence a trustee must always act exclusively in the best interests of the trust and its beneficiaries conscious of the trust’s objectives and the powers reposed in him in the Trust Deed. In that regard, any actions by a trustee which run contrary to the imposed obligations as aforestated, run the risk of being impugned. In this matter, the applicants take issue with decisions taken by a trustee of a Trust known as the Robin Hartley Trust. More
MUZENDA J: This urgent chamber application was brought to me on Friday 29th September 2018 after hours and I issued an interim order interdicting the demolition of a structure constructed on stand 19828 Harare Township registered in Pokugara Properties (Private) Ltd, (the 3rd respondent) and directed the Registrar to set the matter down for the 1st October 2018. On 1 October 2018 the parties agreed to defer the hearing to the 2nd October 2018 to allow the first-third and fourth respondents to file their opposing papers. More
: This matter is decided on the papers without the benefit of oral submissions as agreed to by counsels. This is an opposed application for an interdict in which the applicant seeks an order in the following terms; More
