Law Portal
Zimbabwe

Welcome To Law Portal

Welcome, Guest!
[Help?]

Costs re: Wasted Costs

HH16-08 : CAVIN CHIFAMBA vs NORBERT MUTASA and GUARANTEE TRUST (PVT) LTD and M V CHIZODZA
Ruled By: MAKARAU JP

The plaintiff is resident in the United Kingdom.Sometime in 2003, he telephoned one Simbarashe Sagonda and Thomas Makwangudze, relatives of his, to proceed to view a property that was being offered for sale through the agency of the second defendant.The property, whose description and location in Ruwa was known to ...
More

HH53-09 : ZIMBABWE ALLIED GROUP LTD vs MILDRED AND MATHIAS (PVT) LTD
Ruled By: MAKONI J

The applicant, in the notice of withdrawal of the summary judgment, did not tender costs.
More

HH02-12 : SWANDALE PROPERTIES (PRIVATE) LIMITED vs VENENCIA MADAKE AND MUNICIPALITY OF HARARE
Ruled By: MUTEMA J

In view of the applicant's improper conduct..., it is ordered to pay the first respondent's wasted costs.
More

HH194-12 : STIRCRAZY INVESTMENTS (PVT) LTD vs A LUCKY BRAND (PVT) LTD AND ANOTHER
Ruled By: MATHONSI J

Usually the costs follow the result, but there is the question of the execution costs which should have been avoided. Rule 49 of the High Court Rules, 1971 is peremptory in its application that:- "Within 24 hours of the entry of appearance to defend, written notice shall be served on the plaintiff or its legal practitioners, ...
More

HH194-12 : STIRCRAZY INVESTMENTS (PVT) LTD vs A LUCKY BRAND (PVT) LTD AND ANOTHER
Ruled By: MATHONSI J

I do not agree with the applicant's counsel that the first respondent lost the right to be paid wasted costs when they instructed the Deputy Sheriff to remove goods without notice or when they proceeded with removal after being notified that an appearance was entered. Firstly, the proviso to Rule 326A allows for removal without notice ...
More

SC10-09 : FARAI NIGEL CHITSINDE vs NYASHA AMANDA CHITSINDE AND STANNY MUSA
Ruled By: GARWE JA

There is one preliminary issue that needs to be disposed of. That matter involves the wasted costs of 14 November 2008. In his founding affidavit to the present application the applicant..., deposed to the fact that the judgment of the High Court had been handed down on 28 May 2008. He had only seen a copy ...
More

HB28-09 : LANGALIBALELE ETHAN DUBE and THENJIWE DUBE vs THEOPHILUS MALI ZONDO and REGISTRAR OF DEEDS
Ruled By: NDOU J

The applicants are to bear the wasted costs of this hearing.
More

HH73-10 : CHURCH OF THE PROVINCE OF CENTRAL AFRICA vs ELSON M JAKAZI and F MATAMBANADZO and J D NYAMUNDA and EIGHT OTHERS
Ruled By: MAKARAU JP

Counsel for the defendants has argued that the defendants should not be ordered to pay the costs occasioned by the withdrawal of the exception as they have substituted the withdrawn exception by a special plea filed on the same date as the withdrawal. I cannot agree. Firstly, the defendants have withdrawn an exception, and have substituted it with ...
More

HH166-10 : LOVENESS JIRI vs LOICE MUNYIKWA and LOVEMORE JIRI and MASTER OF THE HIGH COURT
Ruled By: CHIWESHE JP

1. ..., 2. ..,. 3. The applicant is to pay the wasted costs.
More

HH187-10 : FIRST CLASS ENTERPRISES LTD vs SCANLINK (PVT) LTD
Ruled By: GOWORA J

The question of costs is an issue. The plaintiff had sought costs only in the event that the application was opposed. The attitude of the respondent, in seeking to cling onto a judgment entered in circumstances where the plaintiff had not sought the judgment, and it had been entered to the plaintiff's detriment, is baffling to ...
More

HB142-10 : PECHI INVESTMENTS (PVT) LTD vs MAURICE MUTATSI NYAMUDA T/A EBUNANDINI RESTAURANT
Ruled By: CHEDA J

Counsel for the applicant also submitted that in the event that a postponement is granted, the respondent should be placed on terms with regards to a date of hearing, payment of costs on a higher scale and that the respondent should not be heard before settling the said costs….,. (1) …,. (2) Respondent be ...
More

HB187-11 : MOVEMENT FOR DEMOCRATIC CHANGE vs FRACISCO NYONI and DEPUTY SHERIFF
Ruled By: NDOU J

What is beyond dispute in this case is that the application under case number HC2029/10 was properly served on the applicant on 25 January 2011. The applicant chose not to oppose the application. In brief, the applicant did not oppose the registration of the arbitral award granted in favour of the first respondent. Counsel for ...
More

HMA30-17 : ICON ALLOYS [PVT] LTD and TEID HARDWARE [PVT] LTD vs ARAFAS MTAUSI GWARADZIMBA N.O. and SMM HOLDINGS [PVT] LTD and MASVINGO RURAL DISTRICT COUNCIL and SHERIFF FOR ZIMBABWE
Ruled By: MAFUSIRE J

When I ruled that the application was not urgent, the applicants readily tendered the wasted costs, but on a party and party scale. The respondents readily accepted the tender.
More

HH166-14 : IGNATIUS CHOMBO vs MARIAN CHOMBO
Ruled By: MANGOTA J

The costs which the parties incurred in the instant case were, or are, not warranted. They were both prejudiced by the conduct of the plaintiff's legal practitioners. They should, therefore, be returned to the status quo ante 27 March 2014 on the issue of costs for the day....,. The court remains of the view that neither the ...
More

HH366-16 : JOHANNES TOMANA vs JUDICIAL SERVICE COMMISSION and THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE LEGAL AND PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS
Ruled By: MAKONI J

In Patterson Timba v Reggie Saruchera N.O. and Others HH461-15…, I stated the following; “In dealing with the issue of costs on withdrawal of proceedings specifically, AC CILLIERS in the Law of Costs, 2nd ed p121 had this to say: 'Where a litigant withdraws an action or in effect withdraws it, very strong reasons must exist why a defendant ...
More

HH461-15 : PATTERSON TIMBA vs REGGIE SARUCHERA N.O. and RESERVES BANK OF ZIMBABWE and NATIONAL SOCIAL SECURITY AUTHORITY and RENNAISSANCE FINANCIAL HOLDINGS LTD and RENAISSANCE MERCHANT BANK LTD
Ruled By: MAKONI J

The applicant mounted a court application against all respondents seeking certain declarations and consequential relief. At the time of the launch of the application, the fifth respondent was under the management of a curator, the first respondent. The curatorship took effect on 2 June 2011. The applicant was well aware of this position and that the curatorship ...
More

SC52-18 : INNSCOR AFRICA LIMITED and GERIBRAN SERVICES (PRIVATE) LIMITED vs COMPETITION AND TARIFF COMMISSION
Ruled By: MALABA CJ, HLATSHWAYO JA and PATEL JA

This is an appeal against the judgment of the High Court holding that a conglomerate is a “merger” as defined in terms of section 2 of the Competition Act [Chapter 14:28] (“the Act”), and, therefore, notifiable to the respondent in terms of section 3A of the Competition Act if its ...
More

HH29-17 : JOSHUA NYAMHUKA and CHURCH OF GOD OF PROPHECY vs ABIGAIL MAPINGURE and OTHERS
Ruled By: FOROMA J

It is apparent from the number of reference cases in the official heading of this matter that the parties have been at each other in the courts on a number of occasions. Their battles appear to be far from over and their legal advisers do not seem to have made ...
More

SC73-17 : TENDAYI TAMANIKWA and FRANK TINARWO vs ZIMBABWE MANPOWER DEVELOPMENT FUND and EMMERSON PAMIRE
Ruled By: GWAUNZA JA, BHUNU JA and UCHENA JA

This is an appeal coupled with a cross-appeal against the judgment of the Labour Court.Both appellants, in the main appeal, and the respondent in the cross appeal, Emmerson Pamire, were employed by the respondent. Following leakages of confidential information at the work place, the respondent ordered them to sign declaration ...
More

HH258-15 : TETRAD HOLDINGS LIMITED and OTHERS vs NATIONAL SOCIAL SECURITY AUTHORITY and THE SHERIFF FOR ZIMBABWE N.O.
Ruled By: MAFUSIRE J

This was an urgent chamber application for a stay of execution.It was filed on 6 March 2015. It was brought to my chambers at 17:15 hours three days later, i.e. on 9 March 2015. There were eleven applicants. Their case was that on 6 March 2015, i.e. the date the ...
More

HH318-15 : DAVID JACK and OTHERS vs LLOYD MUSHIPE (in his capacity as joint executor of Estate Late Keresia Jack) and OTHERS
Ruled By: CHITAKUNYE J

The applicants (David Jack, Theresia Jack and Theresa Jack) and the first to fourth respondents (Lloyd Mushipe, Simbarashe Mushipe, Jesca Mushipe and Keresia Mushipe) are children of the late Keresia Jack who died intestate on 15 March 1997. The late Keresia Jack's estate comprises an immovable property, namely, House Number ...
More

HH11-15 : RM MINING AND INDUSTRIAL ZIMBABWE (PRIVATE) LIMITED vs STANBIC BANK ZIMBABWE LIMITED
Ruled By: MAFUSIRE J

Following certain concerns that I had raised on the form and content of the urgent chamber application herein, the applicant decided to withdraw it. However, it insisted that each party should bear their own costs. On the other hand, the respondent insisted not only on its costs, but also that ...
More

HH113-09 : DIDYMUS MUTASA vs NGONI NDUNA N.O. and ATTORNEY-GENERAL and COMMISSIONER-GENERAL OF POLICE and ROBERT MCKERSIE
Ruled By: PATEL J

As regards costs, the applicant's counsel conceded, at the hearing of this matter, that the first respondent should not have been cited in his personal capacity and that he was entitled to his wasted costs, including the costs of appearance by counsel.It is accordingly ordered that the applicant shall pay ...
More

HH74-16 : TRIANGLE LTD and HIPPO VALLEY ESTATES LTD and MKWASINE ESTATE and THE ZIMBABAWE SUGAR ASSOCIATION EXPERIMENT STATION (PVT) LTD vs ZIMBABWE SUGAR MILLING INDUSTRY WORKERS' UNION and OTHERS
Ruled By: MAKONI J

The applicants approached this court seeking a provisional order in the following terms:“TERMS OF FINAL ORDER SOUGHTThat you show cause to this Honourable Court why a final order should not be made in the following terms:1. The 1st respondent, its members, and all other persons acting through it and on ...
More

HH164-18 : TRUSTEES FOR THE TIME BEING OF TONGOGARA COMMUNITY SHARE OWNERSHIP TRUST vs MATRIX REALTY (PVT) LTD
Ruled By: MUREMBA J

This is an application for rescission of a default judgment where the applicant prays for relief in the following terms:“It is ordered that:1. The application be and is hereby granted.2. The apparent delay in bringing an application for rescission of judgment in terms of the rules shall be condoned.3. Default ...
More

HH25-08 : ZIMBABWE DEVELOPMENT BANK and INTERNATIONAL FINANCE CORPORATION vs DAVID SCOTT and OTHERS
Ruled By: GOWORA J

The applicants have jointly approached this court for an order in the following terms:“That the confirmation of the liquidation and distribution account by the third respondent, in respect of Shagelok Chemicals (Private) Limited (in liquidation), be and is hereby set aside.That the third respondent be and is hereby directed to ...
More

View Appeal
HMA13-19 : CONCILIA CHINANZVAVANA vs MINISTER OF JUSTICE, LEGAL & PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS and OTHERS
Ruled By: MAFUSIRE J

Section 251(1) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe says:“For a period of ten years after the effective date, there is a commission to be known as the National Peace and Reconciliation Commission consisting of –”The rest is not immediately relevant.The applicant is a Member of Parliament for the House of Assembly ...
More

HB30-15 : JULIUS MPOSELWA vs LEOCHIWE TRADING (PVT) LTD t/a KALAMBEZA SAFARIS and NOREEN SIBANDA and BENSON SIYAWAREVA and DIRECTOR OF HOUSING – VICTORIA FALLS
Ruled By: NDOU J

This is my partly-heard civil trial matter. This matter has a disturbing, chequered history characterised by dalliance.The trial commenced before me in October 2010. Just a bit of evidence was adduced from the plaintiff. Thereafter, the matter was subjected to several postponements. Eventually, the matter resumed on 16 October 2014.On ...
More

HH11-17 : ANDREW PASCOE vs MINISTRY OF LANDS AND RURAL RESETTLMENT and W. BUNGU and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL N.O.
Ruled By: CHITAPI J

In this application, the applicant seeks the following relief as set out in the provisional order:“TERMS OF FINAL ORDER SOUGHT1. That it be and is hereby declared that second respondent's dispossession of certain land and buildings in respect of applicant's offer letter for a certain piece of land described as ...
More

HH312-18 : WAYNE PARHAM and CREDFIN (PRIVATE) LIMITED vs JAN KOTZE
Ruled By: MUREMBA J

I will order the applicants to pay the respondent's costs occasioned by the amendment because the respondent has been unnecessarily put out of pocket by their house not being in order....,.1....,.2....,.3....,.4. The applicants in the present application shall meet the respondent's costs occasioned by the amendment.
More

HH297-21 : MUSA KIKA vs LUKE MALABA and MINISTER OF JUSTICE, LEGAL & PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS and THE JUDICIAL SERVICE COMMISSION and THE ATTORNERY GENERAL OF ZIMBABWE
Ruled By: MUREMBA J, KWENDA J and MUSITHU J

This is a unanimous decision of the court.The applicant filed an urgent court application which was allocated to us on the 14th of June 2021. After perusing it, we set it down for hearing today at 2pm for the purpose of doing case management.An hour before the hearing, we were ...
More

Back Main menu

Categories