The plaintiff herein issued summons against the excipient, the defendant, on 15 April 2010. After filing an appearance to defend, the excipient sought further particulars to the plaintiff’s claim on 4 May 2010. These were filed on 7 May 2010. Attached to the further particulars was a note from the excipient dated 19 October 2009. On 4 June the defendant then filed this exception. The exception is as follows: The defendant has excepted to the plaintiff’s summons in that it is bad in law and does not disclose a cause of action and further that it is vague and embarrassing... More
On 16 September 2010 the Honourable C Mesikano issued an arbitral award in favour of Christopher William Barnsley, herein referred to as the judgment creditor. The award was for payment of a total sum of $61 879-00. The respondent in the dispute was Harambe Holdings (Pvt) Ltd. Pursuant to that award, the judgment creditor applied to this court for the registration of the award in accordance with the provisions of s 98 (14) of the Labour Act [Cap28:01.] This court then issued an order under case No. HC 6651/11 and registered the award as an order of court. Pursuant thereto... More
The applicant herein presently holds certain equipment attached by him pursuant to execution of judgment in Barnsley v Harambe Holdings HC 6651/10. The judgment creditor obtained an arbitral award in September 2010 for the payment by Harambe Holdings of arrear salary amounting to US$61,879. After the registration of the award with this Court, the notice of seizure and attachment of the equipment in question was issued in October 2010.
The claimant is a wholly owned subsidiary of Harambe Holdings. However, it asserts that the seized property belongs to it and not to Harambe Holdings. The judgment creditor disputes this on... More
The applicant was arraigned before a regional court facing a charge of fraud as defined in s 136 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act, [Cap 9:23]. He pleaded not guilty but was convicted as charged. He was sentenced to 4 years imprisonment of which 1 year imprisonment was suspended for 3 years on the usual conditions of good behaviour and a further 2 years suspended on condition he made restitution to the complainant in the amount of US$65 000 on or before 31 March, 2011. He thus would serve an effective 1 year imprisonment. More
BHUNU J: There is no material dispute of facts on the bulk of the facts in this case. It is common cause that the first and third defendants were married in terms of customary law for 12 years. They divorced each other on 22 February 2002 where upon the Magistrate’s court issued an order distributing the former matrimonial home being Stand number 491 Prospect Township of stand 106 of Prospect registered in the first defendant’s name under deed of transfer 5963/87 More
Sometime in October 2006 the plaintiffs contracted the defendant to refurbish their swimming pool whereupon the defendant rendered defective service thereby giving rise to a claim for specific performance or alternatively damages in the sum of US$7 904 235. 00. More
KARWI J: The appellant was arraigned before the Magistrates’ court at Bindura facing six counts as follows:
Count One: Assault as defined in s 89 (1) (a) of the Criminal Law (Codification & Reform) Act [Cap 9:23]
Count Two: Undermining Police Authority as defined in s 177 (a) (1) of the Criminal Law (Codification & Reform) Act [Cap 9:23]
Count Three: Assaulting a Police Officer as defined in s 176 of the Criminal Law (Codification & Reform Act) [Cap 9:23]
Count Four: Assault as defined in s 89 (1) (a) of the Criminal Law (Codification & Reform) Act [Cap 9:23]... More
