litigant who makes a conscious decision to sue through motion, as opposed to action, proceedings is enjoined to anticipate the respondent’s defence. Having anticipated such, he must include in his founding affidavit all the evidence which supports his case including such evidence as will rebut the respondent’s defence. Where he adopts the stated line of reasoning, the court will not find him wanting when he restates his position in the answering affidavit as he will merely be confirming what he has already told the court. More
At a pre –trial conference held in this matter, the parties agreed to proceed by way of stated case. The agreed facts are as follows;
1 The plaintiff is KDV FOAM MANUFACTURERS (PRIVATE) LIMITED, accompany duly incorporated according to the laws of Zimbabwe, who carries on the business of, inter alia, the manufacture of mattresses. More
The appellant was convicted by the court of the magistrate for the crime of theft as defined in s 113 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23]. More
The applicant issued summons claiming against the defendants, jointly and severally, the one paying the others to be absolved, payment of the sum of $1 702 451.00, arising from moneys lent and advanced to the first defendant for which second and third defendants stood as sureties. More
This is an application in terms of s 85(1) (a) and (d) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe (hereinafter referred to as “the Constitution”), in which the applicant seeks the relief set out in the draft order. The draft order seeks the declaration of s 95(1(a) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23] (“the Act”) as unconstitutional. The applicant was charged with contravening the above section. The applicant also seeks an order declaring certain conduct of the State unconstitutional. More
: On 5 November 2006, the plaintiff issued summons out of this court, claiming the sum of $50 million as damages for an assault allegedly perpetrated upon her by members of the Zimbabwe National Army. The claim was resisted and the matter was referred to trial to determine whether the plaintiff was assaulted by members of the national army and if so, whether she is entitled to the amount of damages claimed. More
On the 23 April 2015, the plaintiff sued the defendant for damages in the sum of US$11 700.00 and costs of suit.
In the suit, the plaintiff alleged that sometime in February 2014, he engaged the services of the defendant to represent him in a labour dispute that had arisen between him and his three domestic workers. More
