US$53 820 (Fifty-three thousand eight hundred and twenty united state dollars) is a substantial sum of money, whichever way one looks at it. It is a sum that has the potential of unlocking many possibilities. Defrauding a supposed business partner of that sum of money almost invariablyinvites upon the offender a deserved stint in gaol. The appellant in the present matter, however simplycannot stomach such a prospect. This is despite having candidly admittedhaving employed guile and deception to defraud the complainant of the said sum of money in cash. On the 10th of November we delivered an ex-tempore judgment in... More
The respondent, Comfort HR Strategies (Comfort) sued the applicant, Dairibord Zimbabwe (Private) Limited (Dairibord) under case number HC 2591/20 for the refund of USD110 000.00 a claim based on unjust enrichment. Comfort is a company registered in terms of the laws of South Africa. According to Comfort ’s declaration, there was a verbal agreement between the parties in October 2018 the material terms of which were that Comfort would pay, on behalf of Dairibord, to Dairibord’s foreign suppliers for the purchase of certain input materials. It was agreed that Comfort will pay a total sum of USD500 000.00 to Dairibord’s... More
The first applicant, a duly registered company, is the holder of copper mining rights for the mining claims known as Gubudu 1-3 whose registration numbers are set out above. The second applicant claims to be the majority shareholder with 66% shareholding in the first applicant. The respondent is said to be the biological elder brother of Baoming Huang, the minority shareholder who holds 34% shares in the first applicant. There is a pending shareholding and directorship dispute between the parties under case numbers HC 2480/20 and HC 2492/20, amongst others. It is also submitted that there has been no mining... More
This matter was listed for trial. The first defendant pleaded prescription of the plaintiff’s claim and prayed that the lis against him should be demanded with costs on that score. The plaintiff has pleaded that the lis has not prescribed contrary to the first defendant’s claim in that regard. It is trite that the determination of prescription as a special plea is a trial matter. It is unlike other dilatory points in limine which are determined on the pleadings filed, in short, on the records four corners without the need to consider extraneous evidence. The procedural law relating to prescription... More
The background is that, in October 2017, the Master of the High Court advertised a judicial sale of the property known as Lot 1 of Lot 15 of Makabusi situate in the District of Salisbury, measuring 4047 square metres held under Deed of Transfer Number 7675/1997, otherwise known as Number 15A Ashburton Avenue, Chadcombe, Harare (“the property”).The said property was sold in execution on 3 November 2017 and the second respondent was declared the highest bidder on 7 November 2017.Subsequent to that, the second respondent was confirmed as the purchaser after the applicant failed to object to the sale in... More
This is an opposed court application. The relief sought by the applicant is that the sale in execution and transfer of stand 12038 Bulawayo Township of Bulawayo Township lands situate in the district of Bulawayo and also known as number 8 Annie Morris Road, IIanda, Bulawayo (the property) in favour of the 3rd respondent be set aside as null and void and title in the property revert to the names of the applicant; that the 5th respondent be ordered and directed to facilitate the registration of the property in the name of the applicant; and respondents pays costs only if... More
The brief background to the application is given below. The applicant (judgment debtor) lost an appeal in the Supreme Court against a judgment of the High Court as a result of which the Supreme Court ordered inter alia that;
“the plaintiff (1st respondent in casu)’s claim for eviction of the respondent and all those claiming occupation through him from number 12 Le Roux Drive, Hillside, Harare is granted. It is worth highlighting that by judgment of the Supreme Court aforesaid the applicant in casu had to be ejected from number 12 Le Roux Drive, Hillside, aforesaid”.
Pursuant to the order... More
