This is an appeal against the whole judgement of the High Court (the court a quo) sitting at Harare, dated 11 January 2023, wherein it declared that the procurement contract entered into between the appellant and the respondent was valid and binding between them. The court a quo proceeded, consequently, to grant an order of specific performance of the contract. It also dismissed the appellant’s counter claim and ordered that the appellant pays the respondent’s costs in the claim in reconvention. More
The dispute between the parties is a simple debt for the payment of money, but is complicated by the involvement of diamonds to part settle the amount due. Before delving into the factual matrix of the case, I wish to start by housekeeping issues. On 17 January 2020, the applicant herein filed a court application under HC 403/20 seeking a declaratory relief that applicant fully paid, extinguished, amortized and discharged the first respondent’s judgment debt, execution costs and legal costs secured under a writ of execution dated 4 October 2017. More
This matter was set down as an application for leave to appeal. Before the merits of the application could be entertained two points in limine were raised by the respondent. It is only these two points which are the subject of this judgement. More
On the 21st of September 2022, I granted an extempore judgment dismissing applicant’s claim on the basis of one of the points limine that had been raised. On the 14th of December ,2022 whilst on official vacation, the applicant’s legal practitioner wrote to the Registrar of this court requesting for the written judgment. This is the judgment.
The common cause facts are that, Applicant is a registered Residence Association that represents owners of a block of flats called Zimbabwe Court, situate at stand 408 Avondale West of subdivision A of lot 22 of Block d of Avondale, Salisbury also known... More
Applicant applied to this Court for the reinstatement of a abandoned matter i.e. LC/H/LRA/826/18. At the onset of oral argument 2nd Respondent raised a 2 points in limine which Applicant opposed. More
This is an appeal against a decision by a Disciplinary Authority (DA) appointed by the appellant. (In this judgment the terms DA and Tribunal/Lower Tribunal will be used interchangeably). The respondent is an employee of the appellant. Misconduct charges were preferred against him. Disciplinary proceedings were conducted against him by the DA. At the conclusion of the proceedings the DA acquitted the respondent. The appellant was aggrieved by that outcome and has noted an appeal against that decision. More
For what it is, this judgment is meant to be short. This matter was set down on the unopposed roll on 7 November 2023 for provisional sentence. After hearing counsel for the plaintiff and the defendant, I gave my reasons extempore and granted the following order which was in terms of the draft by the plaintiff: More
