This is an application for a default judgment. My brother judge, BHUNU J, and I raised a query. We felt the claim did not disclose a cause of action. The Plaintiff is in effect claiming specific performance yet, by his own admission, he was in breach of his side of the contract. More
The appellant appeared before a magistrate sitting at Bulawayo on the 18th of November 2018 facing two counts of contravening section 89 (1) (a) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act (Chapter 9:23), that is assault. Appellant pleaded not guilty to both counts but following a full trial he was convicted and sentenced to 48 months imprisonment of which 12 months was suspended for 5 years on the usual conditions of good behaviour.
Dissatisfied with the outcome of the proceedings in the court a quo, appellant lodged an appeal against both conviction and sentence.
In his grounds of appeal,... More
An exception and a special plea fall under the genus “Alternatives to pleading to the merits; forms”. Whilst the stated matter is the case, the two are not the same. They are markedly different from each other.
Herbestein & Van Winsen articulate the difference which exists between a special plea and an exception. They do so in The Civil Practice of the Supreme Courts of South Africa, 5th ed Volume 1 pp 599-600. More
This is an appeal against the decision of the designated agent for NEC Engineering. Two issues were for contest before the Designated Agent i.e. the issue of arrear salaries and benefits on one hand and the issue of leave days on the other hand. At the onset of the appeal the appellant abandoned the first ground relating to salary arrears thus leaving only the issue of leave days. More
On the 17th day of March 2023, I handed down judgment ex tempore as follows
1. The respondents shall, jointly and severally with the one paying the other to be absolved pay applicant the total sum of US$ 2,500,000 (Two Million Five Hundred Thousand United States Dollars only.
2. The 1st respondent’s 2 Zimbabwean registered aircrafts namely, Boeing 737-500 Z FAA and Boeing -500-Z-FAB be and are hereby declared specially executable.
3. The respondents shall pay costs of suit. More
This matter is hereby disposed of in terms of Section 89 (2) (a) (i) of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01]. This is so because after the appellant lodged its appeal on 1 September 2014 and as per Form LC 2 filed of record the Registrar by document stamped 16 September 2014 invited the respondent to put in his response to the appeal, nothing was ever done about the matter thereafter. It is apparent that this appeal has been abandoned hence the decision to dispose of it in the present manner. More
This is an appeal against the whole judgment of the Labour Court, Harare, dated 8 October 2021, which ruled that a Designated Agent had the jurisdiction to determine a dispute between the parties, which arose when the appellant retrenched the respondents in terms of s12 of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01] (‘the Act’). The dispute had already been referred to, but not determined by, the Retrenchment Board. More
This is an appeal against an arbitral award handed down on 12 August 2015, in terms of which the respondent was awarded back pay from June 2009 to August 2011 for performing duties of an artisan. More
This is an opposed application in terms of which first applicant made an application for the sequestration of respondent’s estate and for the appointment of a Provisional Trustee in terms of s 12 of the Insolvency Act [Chapter 6:04]. More
The respondent was served with the applicant’s heads of argument on 23 May 2011. In terms of r 238 (2a) of the High Court Rules, as the respondent is represented by a legal practitioner, the said legal practitioner was required to file heads of argument not more than ten days after receiving the applicant’s heads of argument. More
The plaintiff in this matter claims the sum of US$24,100 as special damages, being loss of profits arising from an alleged breach of contract by the defendants. It also claims restitution of US$10,000 paid as a deposit to the 1st defendant under the same contract. The defendants deny any breach on their part and allege that it was in fact the plaintiff that acted in breach of contract. More
Plaintiff’s claim against the defendant is for refund of $22 400 being the deposit it paid for work which defendant was contracted and failed to perform, interest and costs. More
This an application for the confirmation of a provisional order, granted on 23 February 2011, for the winding up of the 1st and 2nd respondents (the respondents). The latter companies were the tenants of the applicant and jointly operate a tobacco auction floor under the trade name of Zimbabwe Industry Tobacco Auction Centre (ZITAC) together with their sub-tenants. More
The applicant approached this court on a certificate of urgency for a stay of execution in terms of r 60(6) of the High Court Rules, 2021. The relief sought reads as follows:
“TERMS OF FINAL ORDER SOUGHT
That you show cause to this Honourable Court why a Final Order should not be made in the following terms:
1. Application for stay of execution pending determination of the Application for Rescission of default judgment be and is hereby granted.
2. 1st Respondent to pay costs of suit.
INTERIM RELIEF GRANTED
Pending determination of this matter on the return day, the Applicant... More
This is an application wherein the applicant sought the following relief:
1. That respondent be ordered to sign all the necessary papers for the sale and transfer of stand number 598 Scone Drive, Killarney, Bulawayo, which sale and transfer shall be to the highest offeree or above US$140,000-00 as may be secured by the first of the following state agents; John Pocock and Co. (Pvt) Ltd, Ken Estates agents: Rodor Properties (Pvt) Ltd and Bulawayo Real Estates agents, failing which the Deputy Sheriff be authorized to sign the said papers.
That the respondent pays the cost of this application on... More
