The applicants seek the grant of interim relief in the form of a provisional order staying execution of a writ issued against them pending the determination of an application for rescission of judgment. This follows a default judgment granted under HC 6363/11 in which matter the first respondent sued the applicants for payment of the sum of US$5000 000-00. More
On 6 June 2014 this Court dismissed Applicant’s application for interim relief filed in terms of section 92E (3) of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01]. Applicant seeks to approach the Supreme Court. This is therefore an application in terms of section 92F (1) of the Act. More
On 17 August 2011 I entered default judgment against the applicants in favour of the respondent in the following terms:
“IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1. The defendant’s plea be and is hereby struck out.
2. The first, second and fourth defendants shall, jointly and severally, the one paying the other to be absolved, pay to the plaintiff the following amounts:
2.1 US$14 816- 64 at the rate of 5% per annum from 1 February 2011 to date of payment.
2.2 The plaintiff’s costs of suit on the legal practitioner and client scale.” More
The plaintiff herein claims the sum of US$61,944.81 being money which the plaintiff expected to be allocated to it by the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe (RBZ) in terms of a tobacco growers retention scheme. The plaintiff avers that the defendant negligently failed to submit the plaintiff’s application and that, as a result of that negligence, the plaintiff failed to receive its retention money. The defendant disputes any negligence or contractual obligation on its part and denies liability. In the alternative, it is pleaded that any damages proved by the plaintiff should be abated on the ground of its contributory negligence. More
This is an application for bail pending trial. The application was filed on 25th January 2021. I then advised the parties of my intention to dispose of the matter on the papers. To that end I invited them to file heads of argument, if they were so inclined, by 27th January 2021. Counsel for the applicants filed heads of argument on the 28th January and none were filed by the respondent. More
This is an appeal against the decision of the respondent’s disciplinary authority which confirmed appellant’s guilt and dismissed him from work following allegations of fondling a pupil’s breast in contravention of the respondent’s regulations.
The appeal is based mainly on 3 points. These are that, the respondent authority found appellant guilty on insufficient evidence, failed to determine an interim application for recusal which had been made before the committee and that if appellant’s guilt was well founded he was entitled to a penalty lesser than dismissal. More
Rule 348 A of the High Court rues deals with stopping the sale of a dwelling house to facilitate the settlement of a claim. Applicant brought an application under r 348 A (5a) for the postponement or suspension of the sale of the dwelling concerned; or the eviction of its occupants. More
This is an urgent application in which the provisional order sought the placement of a caveat on property described as a certain 4357 square meters of land called stand 17005 Harare Township of Stand 16969 Harare Township situate in the District of Salisbury held under Deed f Transfer No 02319/95. More
This matter came before me on a certificate of urgency issued in terms of r244 of the High Court of Zimbabwe Rules, 1971. The applicant seeks the following relief;-
“Terms of the Final Order sought
1. That the warrant of detention issued by the first respondent authorising the second respondent to detain applicant on 4 July 2012 be and is hereby cancelled.
2. The first respondent is ordered to determine the applicant’s request for extension of his Visa to stay in Zimbabwe within five days of this Order.
3. Should the application for extension of Visa be turned down, the... More
This is an application for condo
ation for late noting of appeal . It is opposed.
The applicant is a former employee of the respondent. On 7th June 2021 he was dismissed from the respondent’s employ following disciplinary proceedings for gross negligence in violation of Part V , Schedule III, Section 21.11 of the applicable code of conduct. His internal appeal to the respondent’s Appeals Committee was noted on 16th June 2021. The appeal was dismissed on 7th September 2023, more than 26 months later. He was aggrieved by that decision and therefore intends to appeal to this Court. He... More
The appellant obtained a judgement for payment of $164 452.00 against one Nizamudein Shahadat. In pursuance of execution, the Messenger of Court attacheda half share in a property called Lot 5 of stands 225-236 of Park Town Extension of Subdivision A of Waterfalls which is co-owned by the respondent and one Neejam Shahadat. The respondent brought up a claim claiming that the immovable property was jointly owned by herself and the said Neejam Shahadat who were not the judgement debtors therefore, the property was not liable for execution, resulting in these interpleader proceedings. More
The appellant was convicted of contravening s 157 (1) (a) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23]. He was sentenced to pay a fine of US$400 in default of payment to undergo four months’ imprisonment. The court further ordered that the appellant be held by prison authorities and be handed over to the Immigration Department for immediate deportation soon after payment of the fine or serving the term of imprisonment. More
This is an appeal against the whole judgment of the High Court which set aside the decision of the taxing master, the second respondent, to allow an advocate’s fees at taxation. More
This case has brought to the fore the question “what constitutes a valid court order” in situations where a court order incorporates a deed of settlement. In casu the applicant seeks the setting aside of a consent order granted by this court on the 15th March 2017 following a deed of settlement entered into by the parties on the 6th March 2017. More
This is an opposed summary judgment application.
The law on the relief of summary judgment is settled.
In sum, it is to enable a plaintiff with a clear case to obtain quick judgment against a defendant who has no real defence against the claim.
The plaintiff’s claim must be unanswerable both on the facts and the law.
To successfully repel such an application, the defendant must establish that he has a good prima facie defence.
Defendant must show that there is a mere possibility of his success at the trial, that he has a plausible case or that there is... More
