The applicants are Chinese nationals resident in Hong Kong who are seeking an order for stay of execution of a judgment obtained against them in default by the first respondent, another Chinese national, on 23 September 2013 in terms of which they were ordered, jointly and severally, theone paying the others to be absolved, to pay the first respondent the sum of US$12 million together with interest at the prescribed rate and costs of suit, being damages for malicious prosecution. They have since filed an application for the rescission of that judgement in HC8709/13 which application is yet to be... More
This is an application for leave to execute a judgment of this court given in Case Number HC 1002/13 pending determination of an appeal noted to the Supreme Court against it by the respondent. The application was brought as an urgent chamber application and was filed on 20 February 2013. The background to the application is as follows: More
There has been ferocious litigation in a space of four months pitting several protagonists. The dispute was convoluted and the issues multifaceted. At the centre was a company called Hwange Coal Gasification Company (Private) Limited. For ease of reference I shall refer to this company as the Coal Gasification Company. The one protagonist wasa Chinese company by the name of Taiyuan Company Limited. The variantsto that name, vehemently disputed by the other protagonists, were Taiyuan Sanxing Company Limited and Taiyuan Sanxing Economic and Trade Company Limited. I shall come back to the dispute over this company’s name later. But hereafter... More
This is an action for the vindication of the plaintiff’s vehicle.
The salient features of this action may be summarised as follows.The plaintiff is the registered owner of a Toyota Land Cruiser registration no. ACF 1290. The defendant was appointed a nonexecutivechairman of the plaintiff’s board of directors since 2006. He was allocated the above referenced vehicle for his use in July 2011 a month before he was removed from plaintiff’s board. Upon his removal as chairperson, the defendant did not return the motor vehicle and has refused to return the vehicle to the plaintiff. More
After hearing submissions from Respondent’s Counsel, I dismissed the application for review with costs and indicated that my reasons will follow.
These are they.
The application proceeded in terms of Rule 19(3) (b) of this Court’s Rules 59/2006 in that Applicant having failed to file its heads of argument as required in terms of Rule 19 was barred. More
This is an application for a review of the decision of the Respondent Disciplinary Hearing Committee which found the applicant guilty of contravening the Public Service Regulations SI 1/ 2000.
The brief facts of the case are that applicant who was employed as an immigration officer based at Beitbridge boarder post, used a visa book whose whereabouts could not be accounted for after she had been the last one to use it on 17th August 2009. More
On 10th February 2012 the Honourable G Fereshi made an arbitration award. In terms thereof he ordered Appellant to pay Respondent an amount of $11 520 as “arrear rentals and school fees due to him.” Appellant then appealed to this Court against the award. More
