[1] This is a piecemeal judgment. For that and other reasons explained hereunder, the above remarks by CHITAPI J become quite relevant to the resolution of points in limine raised by first respondent, in this application for rescission of judgment.
[ 2] The Learned Judge`s observations in Exavier Maoneke v Trustees of Mount Olive Trust (supra), are but a timely reminder that objections in limine, like all other responses by a litigant to its opponent`s case, must at all times be correctly packaged and raised at an appropriate stage in the litigation lifecycle. Much has been said in this court... More
This is an application for condonation of non-compliance with Rule 70 (2) coupled with an application for extension of time within which to apply for reinstatement of the appeal. More
1. These are three chamber applications which were consolidated in terms of rule 34 of the High Court Rules, 2021. The applicant seeks confirmation of provisional orders granted on the 3rd April 2022. The applications were filed in terms of section 5 of the Title Registration and derelict Lands Act [Chapter 20:20]. More
By consent of both parties the two matters were consolidated as they deal with the same issues and relate to the same respondents. Although both matters were filed as urgent chamber applications, the resolution of the matter delayed partly due to some attempts to engage and reach an out of court settlement. The efforts unfortunately did not make headway. More
The above two matters raise the same issues. The matters were placed before me as applications for disposal orders in terms of Section 107 of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01]. The matters were both opposed. They were initially set down for hearing on Wednesday 15th November 2021, but due to COVID 19 restrictions the hearing was deferred. The parties were requested to file written submissions. The Applicants and 1st Respondents in both matters duly complied. No papers were filed on behalf of the 2nd Respondent. This judgment is largely based on the written submissions. More
The applicants were placed on remand jointly charged on one countof armed robbery as defined in s126 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act (Chapter 9:23 ) and one count of unlawful possession of a firearm without a licence in contravention of s4(1) of the Firearms Act (Chapter 10:09). They applied for bail pending trial separately. For convenience, the two records were consolidated by consent for the purposes of disposing of the application. More
