: This matter for provisional sentence was set down on the roll for 16 May 2018. The defendant appeared in person. After hearing submissions, I granted provisional sentence in terms of the draft order. On 1 June 2018 the defendant filed a notice of appeal in the Supreme Court which was filed with the registrar of this court on 4 June 2018, hence the request for the reasons for the order made.
The plaintiff issued a summons for provisional sentence against the defendant. The summons is based on written acknowledgment of debt duly signed by the defendant on 8 January... More
The appellant sued the respondent for the return of a ROTRIX RainmakerIrrigator machine alternatively payment in the sum of $8 900.00 being the purchase price for the particular machine. More
There was drama in this case. At the hearing of the matter Mr A Mugiya who appeared on behalf of the applicants applied that this matter be deferred to some other date in the future to enable him to attach the record of proceedings as well as the Notice of appeal to his application for condonation for late filing of Notice of Appeal and extension of time within which to file Notice of Appeal. The application to defer the matter to another date was resisted by Mr TE Mazarure on the basis that he was hearing of the intention to... More
The applicant’s members have been employed by the first respondent. On the 5th of February 2014 the employees were awarded $59 246-85 by Hon N.A. Mutongoreni, the Arbitrator. On the 24th of September 2015 the award was registered by this court under HC5433/15. The second respondent executed the order but could not collect the whole amount, a balance of $8 302.72 remained outstanding. The applicant reinstructed the Deputy Sheriff for a second chance. The first respondent filed an urgent chamber application on the 4th of August 2017 under HC 7246/17 for an interdict. On the 9th of August 2017 the... More
This is an appeal against a judgment of the High Court which dismissed an appeal mounted by the appellants after their conviction by the magistrates court on a charge of contravening s 136 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act, [Chapter 9:23], (the “Criminal Code”). Pursuant to the conviction, each of the appellants was sentenced to a term of 24 months imprisonment with six months being suspended on conditions of good behavior. More