The plaintiff issued summons on 5 January 2011 against the first four defendants seeking the transfer of 51 sharesin the first defendantheld by the second defendant purportedly on his behalf in terms of an agreement entered into between the third and fourth defendants and him and costs of suit on the attorney and client scale. The action was contested by the first four defendants. More
As if in serious and desperate effort to get the attention of the court the two parties in these two cases filed cross urgent applications in this court on 14 October and 17 October 2013. More
The Applicants are former employees of the Respondent. The Respondent is a registered company engaged in the beverage manufacturing business. In February, 2011, the Respondent moved premises to the Cold Storage Company premises. By end of May, 2011 electricity had been disconnected from the premises. This resulted in reduction of the business by 20%. The Respondent continued to pay its employees whist awaiting reconnection of electricity supplies. Electricity was restored in October, 2011 but was then disconnected in June, 2012. The electricity supplies have not been reconnected to date. More
This is an application for the joinder of the first respondent as a third party in Case No. HC 12970/12. The application was instituted in terms of Order 14 Rule 93 of the Rules of this Court. The application is opposed by the first respondent. After hearing argument from counsel I granted the relief sought with some amendments to the draft order and gave brief reasons. I indicated to the parties that my full written reasons would be given upon the request of either party. The first respondent has written a letter requesting to be furnished with the written reasons... More
The plaintiff’s declaration reads:-
“1. The plaintiff’s claim is for payment of the balance owing in respect of a running account for various transactions.
2. On or about 07 November 2008, Mr Nhemachena who was the financial
advisor of the defendant drew up two reconciliation (sic) which are
annexed hereto marked “A” and “B”.
3. That the reconciliations so prepared were agreed between the plaintiff and the defendant.
4. In respect of annexure “A” the balance of $32 074.13 was reduced by a
payment of $8 000.00 and in respect of annexure “B” the amount of $30
360.26 was reduced... More
This is an application in terms of Section 92E (3) of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01] for stay of an arbitral award in favour of the 1st Respondent. The award was made by the 2nd Respondent on the 12 July 2013. Applicant was ordered to reinstate 1st Respondent with full wages and benefits amounting to $2 280,00. If reinstatement is not an option in the following twenty one working days, Applicant was to pay damages in lieu of reinstatement the quantum of which the parties may agree, failure which either party may approach the Arbitrator for quantification. Applicant was also... More
