On 6 June 2019 the plaintiff initiated court proceedings by issuing summons against Mt Selinda High School and its responsible church authority, United Church of Christ in Zimbabwe as co-defendant claiming payment of US$29 384-00, interest at the prescribed rate and costs of suit on an attorney-client scale. More
This is an application to compel respondents to supply applicant with further and better particulars. The factual background is that the applicant was served with summons in the main matter under HC 3415/15. Before the dies induciae had expired, applicant filed a request for further particulars, which particulars were duly supplied. Subsequently, the applicant did not file a plea or some answer to the claim as required by the rules. Instead, it filed yet another request for further and better particulars. The respondents refused to supply those particulars arguing that they were purely evidential in nature. More
This trial commenced on 17 May 2012. After legal procrastination of over six (6) years the matter has finally come to its conclusion. These slow motion trials should be discouraged. The parties must endeavour to bring the matters to expeditious conclusion. In its pre-trial conference minute plaintiff on the one hand stated that it anticipated the duration of the trial to be four (4) days. On the other hand the defendant indicated that the trial would take about two (2) days. Unfortunately the trial took far much longer than what the parties anticipated. More
On 18 December 2015, the applicant filed an application for rescission of judgment in this Court. The application was opposed by the respondent.On the date of the hearing and before the application could be heard on merits, the respondent raised preliminary points and urged the court to make a specific finding that the applicant’s case was not properly before the court, and therefore sought its dismissal on that point.
The point in limine raised by the respondent’s counsel concerned the interpretation of order 9 Rule 63(1) of the High Court Rules, 1971 which is framed as follows:
“63 court may... More
The appellant was charged and convicted of Rape as defined in s 65 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform Act [Chapter 9:23]. The appellant was convicted of 2 counts of rape and sentenced in respect of both counts to 18 years imprisonment of which 3 years imprisonment was suspended on usual conditions of good behaviour. Aggrieved by both conviction and sentence imposed by the court a quo, the appellant approached this court on appeal. I must mention that the appellant’s counsel properly conceded that if the conviction was proper then the sentence imposed was appropriate as it was in... More
This is an appeal against the judgment of the Labour Court dated 14 July 2017 which dismissed an application for review mounted by the appellant. After reading the documents and hearing counsel, we dismissed the appeal with costs and indicated that reasons would be availed in due course. More
This is an appeal against the whole judgment of the High Court, dismissing the appellant’s claim against the respondent on the basis that it had prescribed and that the alleged acknowledgment of debt by the respondent did not interrupt prescription. More
