This matter turns on the interpretation of a deed of settlement prepared by the applicant’s legal practitioners in consultation with the respondent’s legal practitioners who eventually signed the deed of settlement on behalf of their clients.
The applicant and the respondents were involved in amatter under case number HC4000/17. At the pre-trial conference, the parties negotiated and reached settlement in respect of the subject matter of the proceedings in that case. The settlement culminated into a deed of settlement in terms of which the respondents were to pay certain specified amounts of money on specified dates. The deed of settlement... More
The plaintiff, a banking institution, is claiming payment of a sum of US$124 027.05, interest on that amount at the rate of 28 per cent per annum, collection commission and costs of suit on the legal practitioner and client scale. More
In this urgent application for a provisional order the applicant prays for relief as set out as follows;
FINAL ORDER SOUGHT
1. That the stay of execution is hereby granted
2. Respondents shall pay costs of suit on an attorney-client scale. More
This is an application for the review of a decision of the Magistrates Court. The applicant believes that the trial court’s decision in refusing to grant a certificate for the termination of the minor child’s pregnancy was bad in law in that she states that the Magistrates determination ought not to have been premised on the issue of consent. Applicant submits that the courta quo ought to have granted the certificate for termination on the basis that there was a reasonably possibility that the foetus was conceived as a result of unlawful intercourse. More
The background of the application as per the applicant’s affidavit is that on or about the 3rd November 2017 Mr Jayesh Shah, the applicant’s director was informed through internet published by Newsday that the respondent had obtained a judgment against the applicant. He then contacted applicant’s legal practitioners to investigate circumstances surrounding the granting of the default judgment. On 13 November 2017 he was informed that the default judgment was granted on 24 July 2017. The respondent had made a chamber application for attachment to found or confirm jurisdiction and for substituted service which was filed on 11 April 2017.... More
This chamber application was filed on the 12th day after the conviction and sentence of the applicant on a charge of murder in terms of Order 34 r 263 of the High Court Rules 1971. More
This is an application for an interdict whose draft order is framed as follows:
“TERMS OF THE FINAL ORDER SOUGHT
That you must show cause (sic)this Honourable Court why a final order should not be made in the following terms:
1. The Applicant be and is hereby declared the 90% (ninety percent) shareholder in the 3rd Respondent. The 1st and 2nd Respondent (sic) shall do and sign all things necessary (sic) to endorse the said shareholding in favour of the Applicant on a CR 2 to be filed and issued at the companies registry within 10 day (sic) of this... More
