This is an application for rescission of a default judgment made in terms of Rule 449 (1)(a) of the High Court Rules, 1971 (“the old Rules”). That judgment was granted by this court under case number HC 4052/11. What happened is that, the applicants (who were parties) in those proceedings, defaulted in filing their plea. More
The plaintiff and the defendant are both legal entities incorporated in terms of the laws of Zimbabwe. On 23 October 2015, the two entities signed a Public Procurement Engineering, Procurement and Construction Contract (the Contract). In terms of that contract, the plaintiff was required to construct a 100MW Solar Photovoltaic Power Station in Gwanda (the Project). A dispute arose during the implementation of the said contract prompting the plaintiff to approach the court for the following relief: More
The three applicants in this urgent chamber application applied for a provisional order the terms of the interim relief of which reads as follows- Interim Relief.
That pending the confirmation or discharge of this Provisional Order the applicants are granted the following relief:
1) That first to third respondents is (sic) directed to stop advertising for sale of any stands on a certain piece of land in Hartely called Swallowfield of Johannesburg measuring 127,6238 hectares held under deed of transfer number DT 5157/99.
2) The first to third respondents be directed to refrain from collecting sale proceeds of stands. More
This is an application in terms of s 5(1)(b)(iii) of the Insolvency Act [Chapter 6:07], (hereinafter called “the Act”) for the liquidation of the first respondent on the basis that it is just and equitable to wind it up. The applicant avers that there is a deadlock between its members and directors. In addition, it is submitted that the forth respondent is dissipating the company’s assets, as well as selling assets in its name, thereby creating obligations which the company is unable to fulfill. It has been brought by the executor of the estate of the late Isaiah Mudzengi, who... More
This application was filed in terms of section 5(1)(b)(iii) of the Insolvency Act [Chapter 6:07] (“the Act”), for the liquidation of Greynut Investments (Pvt) Ltd (“the first respondent”) on the basis that it is just and equitable to wind it up. It was brought by the executor of the estate of the late Isaiah Mudzengi, who held 70% shares in the first respondent. The application is opposed by the fourth and fifth respondents. In her opposition, the fourth respondent states that she the Chief Executive Officer and co-director of the first respondent, and that she has a shareholding of 30%.... More
The applicant in casu seeks leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against this Court’s Judgement which dismissed his appeal. The application for leave to appeal was opposed. The respondent argued that the applicant’s grounds of appeal do not raise any questions of law. Further, the application was resisted on the basis that the intended grounds of appeal were not concise and that they were long and rumbling. More
1 This is an application for review of the proceedings of the disciplinary authority. Those proceedings were subject of an internal appeal which appeal upheld the proceedings. More
