This is a court action in which the plaintiff is claiming the sum of US$1. 824 478.80, for professional services rendered by it to the defendant. The professional services concerned were allegedly rendered to the defendant over a period of ten years, from 2002 to 2012. Defendant filed a plea in which aside from denying that it is liable in contract, it raised in point in limine, challenging the plaintiff’s locus standi in judicio to file suit, alleging that because plaintiff cited itself as an association, when it is neither an association nor a partnership, defendant is therefore disqualified form... More
On 27 July 2015 the plaintiff and the first defendant entered into a credit facility agreement for the sell and delivery of stock feeds by the plaintiff to the first defendant on credit. The second defendant Loice Bare bound herself as surety and co-principal debtor for the first defendant’s debt. Payments were supposed to be made within 30 days of the date of invoice. The plaintiff alleges that between July 2015 and May 2016 the first defendant took delivery of stock feeds and accumulated a debt which it failed to pay thereby prompting it to issue summons on 13 December... More
The plaintiff claims against the second and third defendants a sum of US$ 16 016 being the balance outstanding in respect of goods sold and delivered to the first defendant. The original amount claimed in the summons was US$66 801-39. More
The applicant is a housing consortium with a membership of eleven cooperative societies.
The applicant occupies the remainder of GlenEagles farm (Budiriro 5) Harare.
Its application for regularisation of occupation is currently before the respondent for determination.
The allegation is made that thirty members of the applicant are in occupation and about 200 families had erected temporary structures on the land in question.
On 9 August 2018 the respondent delivered a notice to the applicant in terms of clause 18(2) of the Urban Council’s (Model) USe and Occupation of Land and Buildings) By-Laws 1979 Statutory Instrument 109 of 1979. More
The plaintiff issued summons against the three defendants seeking the following relief;
“(a) An order declaring the Sale Agreement between the 1st defendant and the 2nd defendant
in respect of the property described in the plaintiff’s declaration to be null and void.
(b) An order declaring the sale agreement between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant
in respect of the property described in the plaintiff’s declaration to be valid and
binding.
(c) An order compelling the 1st defendant to within seven (7) days of being served with this order and against payment by the plaintiff of the balance of the... More
