This is a Court Application for Summary Judgment being made in terms of Rule 30 (1) of the High Court Rules, 2021. The facts are that on 4 May 2022 the respondent acknowledged its indebtedness to the applicant in the sum of ZWL$5 830 703.22 (Five Million Eight Hundred and Thirty Thousand Seven Hundred and Three Zimbabwean Dollars and twenty-two cents) being unremitted levies up to March 2022. On the same acknowledgment of debt, the respondent undertook to service the debt as follows:
a) May 2022 ZWL$ 1 685 174.34
b) June 2022 ZWL$ 1 685 174.34
c) May 2022... More
Fifth respondent took a special plea to plaintiff`s claim. Plaintiff objected to the special plea on the basis that it was in breach of r 42 (8) of the High Court Rules 2021. Indeed, the special plea was not filed concomitantly with the defendant`s heads of argument as required by r 42 (8).
This defect was brought to defendant`s attention on 22 November 2021 in the plaintiff`s replication as well as heads of argument responding to defendant`s special plea. Defendant responded to this letter and replication some forty-three (43) or so days later through a letter, by his legal practitioners,... More
I heard this matter on 15 September 2021. I delivered an ex tempore judgement in terms of which I granted the applicant’s prayer as contained in the latter’s draft order.
On the following day, the respondents addressed a letter to me. They advised that they have appealed my decision. They requested what they termed a full written judgement to enable them to appeal. More
This is a joint application for leave to bring a class action as well as to compel the respondents to furnish requested information pursuant to the right of access to information brought in terms of Rule 89 of the High Court Rules, 1971.
The background facts are that sometime at the beginning of the year 2021, the first respondent commenced subdividing land which houses Rossa Clinic and which land is earmarked for the expansion of the clinic. The community through the applicants who are their representatives sent a delegation to the Chief Executive Officer of the first respondent to enquire... More
The facts of the case that are not disputed if one takes into account the papers filed of record are that the Applicant imported Pre-Painted Galvanized Iron (PPGI) sheets that it uses to manufacture roofing sheets. Applicant then enlisted the services of the Respondent to do port clearance and transportation of the said sheets from the port to the premises of the Applicant in Harare. There was never any dispute or misunderstanding as regards the parties obligations in the contract. The Applicant met its side of the contract through paying the Respondent amounts that are not in dispute. The Respondent... More
This was initially a contested trial which then proceeded as a stated case by mutual consent of the parties after filing a statement of agreed facts. The point of law taken up for argument revolves around the interpretation of s 282(2)(b) of the Urban Councils Act [Chapter 29:15]. More
The defendant was employed by the plaintiff as its Chief Executive Officer. As part of his employment benefits, he was granted occupation of a property known as number 31 Shottery Road, Greystone Park, Harare. The defendant’s contract of employment was terminated in June 2017. Thereafter parties have been in and out of court regarding the legality of the termination. To date the issue has not been finally determined. Upon termination of the employment contract, the plaintiff sued out summons against the defendant for ejectment, holding over damages including interest thereon and costs of suit on a higher scale. More
