This is an application for rescission of a default judgment made in terms of Rule 449 (1)(a) of the High Court Rules, 1971 (“the old Rules”). That judgment was granted by this court under case number HC 4052/11. What happened is that, the applicants (who were parties) in those proceedings, defaulted in filing their plea. More
This is an application for summary judgment. The background to the matter is that on 28 November 2005, the applicant (then the plaintiff) issued summons under case number HC 6208/05. The applicant claimed payment of the sum of $10 208 059-35 (revalued) owing in terms of an acknowledgement of debt dated 16 November 2005, interest at the prescribed rate from 11 November 2005 to date of receipt of payment and costs of suit. On 6 February 2006, the respondent (then the defendant) entered an appearance to defend. After having requested for further particulars, and further and better particulars which were... More
The plaintiff instituted these claims based on two acknowledgments of debt documents, [hereinafter referred to as AODs]. The plaintiff claims $26 258-12 and $38 402-03 being monies advanced to the defendant in respect of wheat and soya beans farming respectively. It claims that the defendant has failed, refused and neglected to pay the amounts in breach of the AODs. The defendant admits signing the AODs but claims that he did so under duress and undue influence. The issue referred to trial is whether the AODs were signed freely and voluntarily. More
: This is a claim by the plaintiff for payment by the defendants jointly and severally one paying the other to be absolved, of:-
(a) US$257 003, 91, being the capital amount;
(b) US$112 248, 94, being interest;
(c) US$85 220, 43 being penalty charges;
(d) Interest on the sum of US$257 003,91 at the rate of 15%.
The claim arises from a loan advanced to the 1st defendant. More
This is an urgent application for stay of execution. The applicant and the first respondent concluded a lease agreement in respect of premises situate at Number 4 Grant Street Kopje, Harare where the applicant runs a restaurant. More
The plaintiff and the defendant are both legal entities incorporated in terms of the laws of Zimbabwe. On 23 October 2015, the two entities signed a Public Procurement Engineering, Procurement and Construction Contract (the Contract). In terms of that contract, the plaintiff was required to construct a 100MW Solar Photovoltaic Power Station in Gwanda (the Project). A dispute arose during the implementation of the said contract prompting the plaintiff to approach the court for the following relief: More
This is an application for stay of proceedings that are before the second respondent pending the determination of an application for review of the second respondent’s dismissal of an exception to the charges. More
At the commencement of the hearing, Mr Uriri for the applicant applied to amend the applicant’s draft order with the consent of Mr Manjengwa for the respondent. The prayer in the draft order was accordingly deleted and substituted as follows:
1. It is hereby declared that procurement contract No. ZPC 304/2015 dated 23 October, 2015 between the applicant and the respondent is valid and binding between the parties.
2. Consequent on the declaration of validity of the contract, a decree of specific performance be and is hereby issued.
3. The conditions precedent the satisfaction period are deemed to have ben... More
This is an application for dismissal for want of prosecution of the application for rescission of judgment filed by the first to 33rd respondents on 8 June 2016. The main application was filed under case no. HC 5801/16, seeking the setting aside of the order of this court granted in case no. HC 7797/15 on 6 April 2016. After the respondents had served the application for rescission of judgment the applicant filed its notice of opposition and opposing affidavit on 23 June 2016. The respondents took about five months to file an answering affidavit to the opposing papers. After that... More
On 8th March 2016 at Harare, Arbitrator V Mateko issued an arbitration award. She ordered the appellant to pay the respondent an amount of $500-00 as outstanding salary. The appellant then appealed to this court against the award. The respondent opposed the appeal. The grounds of appeal were rather prolix as the appellant acted pro se. However the first four grounds of appeal basically cover the appellant’s case. More
This is a special plea raised by the first and second defendants against the plaintiff’s claim in case HC 7222/11.
At the commencement of the application, the proceedings against the second defendant were by consent of all the parties stayed in terms of s 54 (2) of the Banking Act [Cap 24:20]; it having been placed under curatorship by the Central Bank on 11 June 2012. I proceeded to hear the first defendant’s special plea. More
The parties to this case are embroiled in a contractual dispute. Basically the allegations against the respondent are that he has taken control of farming operations at Inyanga Downs Orchards without the consent of other directors. In its amended draft order the applicant is seeking the restoration of the status quo ante. At the hearing of this application counsel for the respondent raised some points in limine. More
This is an application brought to this court in terms of section 4 (1) of the Administrative Justice Act Chapter 10:28. It is an application to set aside the determination by the Master of the High Court (herein cited as 1st respondent), wherein on 8th of August 2019, she declared the last Will and Testament of the Late Tulli Ndlovu Mathiya as void due to a subsequent customary law union that he contracted with the 2nd respondent, namely Lomangwe Ndiweni. More
