These are confirmatory proceedings for a provisional order for winding up of the first respondent granted by judgment of TAGU J on 30 January 2019. The provisional order is couched in these terms:
“It is hereby ordered that:
1. The first respondent, Capital Bank Corporation Limited be and is hereby provisionally wound up, pending the granting of an order in terms of paragraph 3 hereof or the discharge of this order.
2. Mr John Mafungei Chikura of Deposit Protection Corporation Evelyn House 26 Fife Ave/Corner Blackistone Street, Harare, be and is hereby appointed as the first respondent’s Provisional Liquidator with... More
Fifth respondent took a special plea to plaintiff`s claim. Plaintiff objected to the special plea on the basis that it was in breach of r 42 (8) of the High Court Rules 2021. Indeed, the special plea was not filed concomitantly with the defendant`s heads of argument as required by r 42 (8).
This defect was brought to defendant`s attention on 22 November 2021 in the plaintiff`s replication as well as heads of argument responding to defendant`s special plea. Defendant responded to this letter and replication some forty-three (43) or so days later through a letter, by his legal practitioners,... More
The applicant is the lessor of premises known as Rear Room, Chesterton House, 42 Sam Nujoma Street, Harare. On 31 August, 2009, through its agents CB Richard Ellis, it entered into a written lease agreement in respect of the premises with the first respondent. The first respondent was represented by its director, the second respondent as surety and co-principal debtor. The period of the lease was to run for two years from 1 February, 2009 to 31 January, 2011. The basic rent was pegged at US$150 per month from 1 February, 2009 to 30 June, 2009 and was subject to... More
: The respondent being barred for failure to file heads of argument in terms of the rules of this court and no application for the upliftment of the bar having been made, the applicant is entitled to the relief sought More
I will refer to the parties as “NSSA” and “Council” respectively.
The facts of this matter are set out in my judgment in HH 385/18 wherein I disposed of Council’s defence of prescription.
For convenience, I will briefly summarise the facts. They are to a large extent common cause.
In April 2002 and at Mutare the parties entered into two separate written agreements of sale.
The provisions of the agreements were identical.
The major difference was that the first agreement was in respect of the sale of 950 residential stands in Fernhill, Mutare whereas the second had the sale of... More
This is an application for upliftment of a bar. The three applicants herein are the defendants in the main matter while the respondent herein is the plaintiff. I will refer to the parties as the plaintiff and defendants for ease of reference. More
The applicant is praying for judgment against second defendant as follows:
(a) US$ 4 297 170.00
(b) US$ 80 000.00 and
(c) Costs of this application. More
The 1st Respondent is Zimbabwe’s current Minister of Finance and economic development. He was cited here in his official capacity as such. On the 1st of August 2019 he delivered before Parliament his mid-year budget review and supplementary budget. Below are the relevant excerpts thereof (paragraphs 54-56) which ignited this current dispute. More
The remedy of provisional sentence is available by virtue of r 20 of the High Court Rules, 1971 to a party who is the holder of a valid acknowledgement of debt, commonly known as a liquid document, who may issue summons for provisional sentence based on that document. As stated by the learned authors Herbstein and van Winsen, The Civil Practice of the Superior Courts in South Africa, 3 ed, Juta & Co Ltd at p 541:
“The essence of the procedure then and now is that it provides a creditor who is armed with sufficient documentary proof (a liquid... More
This is an appeal against the determination of the Registrar of Labour (the Registrar) in terms of which she limited the scope of registration of the appellant to the iron and steel production, ferro alloy, motor vehicle assembly and manufacturing industries. More
Aggrieved by the decision of this court in HB 73/19, the Applicant filed a Notice of Appeal against that judgment in the Supreme Court under Case No. SC299/19. On 19 July 2023, the Supreme Court removed the appeal from the roll because the Appeal had been deemed dismissed due to failure to provide adequate security for the Respondent’s costs of appeal. More
This matter was set down for parties to argue an application for interim relief. The record was prepared and paginated for that application. When the parties appeared the legal practitioner for the applicant withdrew the application so that parties could proceed to argue the merits. The parties had prior to their appearance before me,duly discussed and agreed to this route. I accordingly endorsed that that application had been withdrawn. More
The Respondent was employed by the Appellant as a Human Resources Officer. His office was abolished on the 22nd of July 2013. On 20th September 2013 the Appellant notified Respondent employees of its intention to terminate some of its employees through retrenchment as part of a restructuring exercise aimed at reducing operational costs. The Respondent was notified on the 20th of September 2013 that he was going to be terminated through retrenchment. His and other employees’ names were referred for approval by the Minister. Approval was then granted on the 17th March 2014. Before the approval was however granted the... More
Respondent served as applicant`s acting managing director between July 2020 and January 2021. During the period February and December 2021, he was arrested and prosecuted over matters arising in the course of duty. The charge was Criminal Abuse of Duty as a Public Officer in terms of Section 174(1) (b) of the Criminal Law, Codification and Reform Act [Chapter 9:23]. More
