Law Portal
Zimbabwe

Welcome To Law Portal

Welcome, Guest!
[Help?]

Documentary Evidence, Certification, Commissioning, Authentication and the Best Evidence Rule re: Public Documents

SC03-21 : AFRITRADE INTERNATIONAL LIMITED vs ZIMBABWE REVENUE AUTHORITY
Ruled By: PATEL JA, BHUNU JA and BERE JA

This is an appeal against the judgment of the Fiscal Appeal Court dismissing an appeal against the determination of the respondent requiring the appellant to pay value added tax (VAT) on the importation of certain goods into Zimbabwe.BackgroundThe appellant is a foreign company incorporated in the British Virgin Islands and ...
More

HH424-13 : HONEY AND BLANCKENBERG vs LOURENCE ERASMUS VERMAAK and OTHERS
Ruled By: TSANGA J

The BackgroundThe applicant, Honey and Blanckenberg, instituted interpleader, in terms of Rule 30 of the High Court Rules, for the court to declare to whom it should pay an amount of $70,000 currently held in trust as rentals for certain companies.According to the applicant's affidavit, the companies in question are ...
More

View Appeal
SC15-13 : CLETUS CHIKWUKA ANUEYIANGU vs CHIEF IMMIGRATION OFFICER and THE CO-MINISTERS OF HOME AFFAIRS and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ZIMBABWE
Ruled By: CHIDYAUSIKU CJ, ZIYAMBI JA, GARWE JA, GOWORA JA and OMERJEE AJA

In his grounds of appeal, the appellant attacked the court a quo for relying on the photocopies of Immigration and Prison records in coming to the conclusion that he had previously been deported.In my view, this submission is without merit.Section 12(2) of the Civil Evidence Act [Chapter 8:01] allows the ...
More

HH05-03 : U-FREIGHT EUROMAR (PRIVATE) LIMITED vs EMMANUEL MUTEBUKA
Ruled By: MAKARAU J

It is the law relating to the proof of documents that are not public documents that their authenticity must be proven. The authors HOFFMAN ZEFFERTH observe that evidence is normally required to satisfy the court as to the authenticity of any tendered document.In H Dwitkoppen Agencies ...
More

View Appeal
HH351-20 : THE SHERIFF OF ZIMBABWE and GURTA AG vs ANDERSON MANJA and 98 OTHERS
Ruled By: CHIKOWERO J

JUSTIFICATIONThe HOLY BIBLE, CONCORDANCE AUTHORIZED KING JAMES VERSION, 2013 p1078 reads, in Ecclesiastes 4:09-12:“9. Two are better than one; because they have a good reward for their labour.10. For, if they fall, the one will lift up his fellow: but woe to him who is alone when he falls; for ...
More

HH521-18 : DEPUTY SHERIFF MARONDERA vs ESTHER HOMBARUME and VIOLET MUNJARANJI and EPHISON NDAHWI and SHAKI MUSEVE and NOMUHLE BANGANI and COOPER SMIT and TIANZE TOBACCO PL and LAWRENCE KATSIRU
Ruled By: CHITAPI J

In this application, the applicant attached in execution certain movable goods listed in annexure B to the application. The goods were attached for execution to satisfy a judgment of this court in the case Tian Ze Tobacco Company (Pvt) Ltd v Lawrence Katsiru Case No. HC2100/14.The two parties are the ...
More

SC77-17 : JULIANA SABARAUTA vs LOCAL AUTHORITIES PENSION FUND and THE SHERIFF
Ruled By: GUVAVA JA, UCHENA JA and ZIYAMBI AJA

The appellant appealed to this court against the decision of the High Court. After reading the record and hearing submissions from counsel for the parties, we dismissed the appeal with costs. We indicated that reasons for judgment would follow in due course. These are they.FACTUAL BACKGROUNDThe appellant was a director ...
More

HB125-11 : PASTOR MOYO and REVEREND DWIGHT BALTZELL and REVERND DARREL LEE and THE APOSTOLIC FAITH MISSION OF PORTLAND OREGON vs REVEREND RICHARD SIBANDA and THE APOSTOLIC FAITH MISSION
Ruled By: MATHONSI J

Rule 63 of the High Court of Zimbabwe Rules, 1971 provides:“(1) A party against whom judgment had been given in default, whether under these rules or under any other law, may make a court application not later than one month after he has had knowledge of the judgment; for the ...
More

HB02-15 : RHINE INVESTMENTS (PVT) LTD and ROGER MADANGURE vs WASAA COMMODITIES (PTY) LTD
Ruled By: TAKUVA J

This is an application for rescission of a decision made in case number HC1646/12 wherein it was ordered that the applicant's defence should be struck out and the matter referred to the unopposed roll.The facts are that on 21st May 2012, the respondent instituted proceedings against the applicants for payment ...
More

Back Main menu

Categories

Back to top