This is an opposed court application for summary judgment.
On 3 September 2020 the applicant instituted proceedings against the respondents by way of summons under case number HC 4806/20. The relationship between the applicant and respondents (the parties) in this case is regulated by a lease agreement signed on 25 January 2018. In the summons the applicant alleged certain breaches of the lease by the first respondent and seeks relief, inter alia, for the cancellation of the agreement, eviction and recovery of arrear rentals. The second respondent was joined as the second defendant because of his role as a surety... More
The material background facts are as follows;
The Applicant was employed by the Respondent as a bus washer from 2003. The Labour Court found that he had been unlawfully dismissed and handed down the order as reflected supra. The Respondent, having opted out of reinstatement the Applicant approached this court for quantification of his claims. The original claim was for $34 880.27 to cover backpays and damages in lieu of reinstatement. That claim was however supplemented through papers filed on the 18th of September 2012 to reflect a total claim for $44 062.56. More
The applicants and the first respondent maintained a landlord-tenant relationship. The relationship was based on an agreement of lease which the parties concluded on 4 October, 2006. More
The respondent is an administrative authority tasked with the duty and obligation to collect taxes and other statutory dues under various legislative instruments. In particular, the respondent is mandated to collect income tax in terms of the Income Tax Act [Chapter 23:06] (“Act”). More
This is an appeal against the decision of the Respondent to dismiss the Appellant on allegations of contravening the Respondent Code of conduct SI 165 or 1995 Part B Section 4 (a) (iv) Misappropriation; applying or attempting to apply to a wrong use for unauthorized purpose any funds, assets or property belonging to the company ;
and
4 (a) (i) bribery or corruption; giving or receiving or attempting to give or receive any bribe of inducing, or attempting to induce any person to perform any corrupt act;
and
4 (a) (ii) false evidence, deliberately giving untrue, erroneous or misleading information... More
This is an application to compel respondents to supply applicant with further and better particulars. The factual background is that the applicant was served with summons in the main matter under HC 3415/15. Before the dies induciae had expired, applicant filed a request for further particulars, which particulars were duly supplied. Subsequently, the applicant did not file a plea or some answer to the claim as required by the rules. Instead, it filed yet another request for further and better particulars. The respondents refused to supply those particulars arguing that they were purely evidential in nature. More
The applicants approached this court seeking a review in terms of ss 26-7 of the High Court Act as read with the common law, alternatively in accordance with s 4 of the Administrative Justice Act and in Accordance with Order 33, r 256 of the High Court Rules 1971. The applicants further seek that the acquisition by the first respondent be declared invalid and be set-aside. More
Background
Applicant acted as village head in 2006. He was made substantive in 2009. In 2011 applicant was suspended pending alleged misconduct. On 13 June 2012 applicant was reinstated to his position as village head without loss of benefits. After that 2012 reinstatement no documents pertaining to his misconduct as village head was served on him. On 9 September 2021 applicant received a letter from the District Development Coordinator addressed to Chief Marange advising the chief about the removal of applicant as village head and his replacement with second respondent Edward Marange. The letter does not state the reasons for... More
The appellant in this matter has filed an appeal against the award that was delivered by Honourable Arbitrator J Zhakata. In addition the respondent has filed a cross appeal against part of the Arbitration award. More
The first respondent is a company in which the applicant and the second, third and fourth respondents are presented as the shareholders. The second respondent holds 70 percent shareholding while each of the other three holds 10 percent of the shares. The shareholding structure is contained in an agreement signed by the parties. In 2007 the first respondent was allocated tracts of land by the Government through the relevant Ministry. The land was meant for the development of residential properties, industrial use, commercial use, and for the construction of a hotel. The land was registered in the name of the... More
This application is one where the respondent should suffer for its own sins as well as for the sins of its own legal practitioners. Its attitude to its case speaks volumes of its confused state of mind. The dilatory manner in which its legal practitioners handled its side of the application shows nothing but a do not care disposition to their duty towards the court and their client. The legal practitioners decided to, and did actually, sleep whilst they were on duty. Their conduct was, at best, one of indifference and, at the worst, a clearly unquestionable dereliction of duty. More
This is an opposed application for confirmation of a provisional order issued by my sister Judge, Justice GUVAVA on 25 March 2011 calling upon the respondents to show cause why a final order should not be made upon the following terms: More
This is a simple case for summons for provisional sentence anchored on an alleged acknowledgment of debt executed, on 14 February 2017, by one Dr K Karonga, as General Manager of the respondent in this case. It will be necessary in this case to reproduce the document that has given rise to the dispute between the parties. I do so hereunder: More
