The parties referred to the court for determination as a stated case the single legal issue “whether costs of suit on an attorney client scale and collection commission as provided for under the Law Society of Zimbabwe By-laws (1982) are payable by the first and third defendants jointly and severally, the one paying the other to be absolved, and if not, to determine the appropriate scale of costs”. More
The plaintiff instituted these claims based on two acknowledgments of debt documents, [hereinafter referred to as AODs]. The plaintiff claims $26 258-12 and $38 402-03 being monies advanced to the defendant in respect of wheat and soya beans farming respectively. It claims that the defendant has failed, refused and neglected to pay the amounts in breach of the AODs. The defendant admits signing the AODs but claims that he did so under duress and undue influence. The issue referred to trial is whether the AODs were signed freely and voluntarily. More
This is an application for dismissal for want of prosecution of the application for rescission of judgment filed by the first to 33rd respondents on 8 June 2016. The main application was filed under case no. HC 5801/16, seeking the setting aside of the order of this court granted in case no. HC 7797/15 on 6 April 2016. After the respondents had served the application for rescission of judgment the applicant filed its notice of opposition and opposing affidavit on 23 June 2016. The respondents took about five months to file an answering affidavit to the opposing papers. After that... More
Mr A A Makore who appeared for the respondent indicated that he was no longer representing the respondent and that he had merely attended court out of courtesy and to advise court of his position. He also had not filed a formal notice of renunciation of agency. In any case even if he had hoped to represent the respondent, he was barred by virtue of not having filed heads of arguments in terms of the High Court Rules, 1971 More
In this application, referred to this court pursuant to the provisions of s 175(4) of the Constitution, the applicant seeks the following order:
1. It is declared that the prosecution of the applicant Jabulani Sibanda in respect of his address to war veterans and others at Herbert Mine, Mutasa District, on 27 October 2014 is unlawful in that it is in violation of ss 60 and 61 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe.
2. No propagation and expression of one’s ideas and opinions should be subjected to prosecution under s 33(2)(b) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act.
3. That... More
In this matter the applicant was sued by the respondent for adultery damages in the sum of $25 000.00 being $12 500.00 for contumelia and $12 500.00 for loss of comfort solicity and services of the spouse i.e. loss of consortium. The applicant on being served with the summons and declaration duly entered appearance to defend and filed his plea under case No. HC 4093/16. More
