Shumba owned a residential of property in South Africa. It was under mortgage. He failed to service his mortgage bond. The bank foreclosed on the mortgage bond. He was desperate to avoid the sale of his property by auction. He approached Jayesh Shah for a loan in order to save his property from imminent auction. They concluded an agreement in South Africa in terms of which Jayesh Shah remitted money to Shumba’s legal practitioners in South Africa. The property was not auctioned on the due date. Instead the legal practitioners passed a mortgage bond over the property in favour of... More
This is an application for review wherein the applicant seeks the setting aside the respondent’s decision to declare one of its trucks and two trailers (the vehicles) declared forfeit to the State. The forfeiture followed the vehicles’ irregular importation into the country on a temporary import permit. The applicant claims that the decision to forfeit those vehicles was tainted by gross unreasonableness and gross irrationality lending itself to being set aside on review. Consequent to such setting aside of the respondent’s decision, the applicant prays that the vehicles be released to it. More
The dispute between the parties is concerned with a share certificate in the name of Gilbert Muponda of ENG. On 18th February 2004 this Honourable Court granted an order in favour of the applicant as against the said Muponda, one Nyasha Watyoka and ENG Asset Management (Pvt) Ltd. In terms of the order aforesaid Watyoka and Muponda were held personally liable for all debts and liabilities due by the asset management company to the applicant. This court also ordered that the personal properties of the two be sold in execution for the due payment of the amount of $499 782... More
This is a chamber application for leave to admit into evidence a supplementary opposing affidavit earlier filed without the leave of the court.
BACKGROUND
The background to this matter is that the respondent filed an application under HC 1130/11 to compel the applicant to transfer stand 13981 Khami Road Extension, Kelvin West, Bulawayo into its name on 3 February 2011.Following this the applicant in this application who is the respondent in HC 1130/11 filed its opposing papers followed by an answering affidavit from the first respondent. The applicant subsequently filed a supplementary opposing affidavit[hereinafter referred to as the supplementary or... More
: The applicant is an incorporation under provisional liquidation and is, through its provisional liquidator, seeking an interlocutory interdict preventing the second respondent from transferring, encumbering or dealing with stand 5205 Salisbury Township of Salisbury Township lands (“the property”). It also seeks an interlocutory interdict preventing the fourth respondent, a commercial bank, from releasing the purchase price of US$280 000-00 to anyone or registering any bond or other form of security on the title deed of the property and another interlocutory interdict against the third respondent, the Registrar of Deeds, from processing any transfer, mortgage bond or other security on... More
The plaintiff issued summons against the defendants claiming jointly and severally the one paying the other to absolved payment of US$501092.34 being capital, US$54 695,59 being interest, US$180.00 being Bank charges, interest on the sum of US$501 092.34 at the rate of 23% per annum subject to variation from time to time with effect from the 16th of August 2016 to date of payment and costs of suit on a legal practitioner and client scale and collection commission as provided for under the Law Society of Zimbabwe by –laws (1982). More
1. This is an appeal against the decision of the High Court handed down under HH 253/16 wherein the court a quo found the appellant liable to pay to the respondent the sum of US$847 847.65 together with costs of suit and interest at the prescribed rate from the date of the granting of the judgment to the date of payment in full. The appellant is a statutory corporation set up in terms of the Infrastructure Development Bank of Zimbabwe Act [Chapter 24:14] (“the IDBZ Act”). The respondent is an oil company registered in accordance with the Companies Act [Chapter... More
TAKUVA J: Plaintiff issued summons against both defendants on 25 June 2010. Plaintiff’s claim is for;
(a) An order that the defendant pays an amount of US 37 700-00.
(b) An order that defendant pays interest on the amount demanded in (a) above at the prescribed rate from date of summons until the amount has been paid in full.
(c) An order that defendant pay costs of suit.
Subsequently by consent of the defendants, plaintiffs amended their summons to read as follows;
(a) Defendants jointly and severally one paying the other being absolved an amount of US 66 702-00.
(b)... More
This is an appeal against the whole judgment of the High Court handed down on 26 July 2017 which judgment disposed of two cases, namely HC 8193/14 and HC 8866/14, which had been consolidated. The former was a summons action instituted by the second respondent for the eviction of the appellant from a property known as Stand 102 Logan Park Township of Lot 6A, Hatfield, Harare (the property). The latter was an action by the appellant for the cancellation of both the sale and transfer of the property to the second respondent. More
The plaintiffs are a married couple, so too are the defendants. The two sets of couples are locked in a dispute over the financial implications of the demise of their short-lived business partnership. The business partnership which came into existence sometime in July 2020 went into a tailspin barely three months into its life before collapsing entirely. As between them the parties had two business concerns comprising a hardware store and a baby supplies shop.
The causes of the demise of the partnership are yet contested, suffice it to say that in the immediate aftermath thereof, the plaintiff’s instituted the... More
Applicant applied to this Court for leave to appeal this Court’s judgement referenced LCH 509/24 to the Supreme Court. The application was made in terms of Section 92F of the Labour Act Chapter 28:01 as read with Rule 43 of the Labour Court Rules, 2017. Respondent opposed the application. More
