Law Portal
Zimbabwe

Welcome To Law Portal

Welcome, Guest!
[Help?]

Cause of Action and Draft Orders re: Exceptions iro Further Particulars and Faulty Formulation of Pleadings

HHH106-12 : THE STATE vs LOVEMORE KUROTWI and DOMINIC MUBAIWA
Ruled By: BHUNU J

Section 177 of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act [Chapter 09:07] reads:“177 Court may order delivery of particulars(1) The court may either before or at the trial, in any case if it thinks fit, direct that particulars be delivered to the accused of any matter alleged in the indictment, summons ...
More

HH24-10 : SAHAWI INTERNATIONAL (PTY) LIMITED and YAKUB IBRAHIM MAHOMED vs JOHN ARNOLD BREDENKAMP and BRECO INTERNATIONAL (PRIVATE) LIMITED
Ruled By: MAKARAU JP

After being furnished with further and further, and better, particulars to the plaintiffs' claim, the defendants filed their pleas.
More

HB129-10 : HERBERT VAN DEN BERG and CYNTHIA BESWICK vs FRANK LANG
Ruled By: MATHONSI J

At the first hearing of this matter, on 15 October 2010, counsel for the applicants requested a postponement to enable him to confer with the applicants on the allegations of abandonment which he was not aware of. It was drawn to his attention that he may need to supplement his papers because as they ...
More

HH125-13 : MICHELLE NYAMANGUNDA vs MASHONALAND TURF CLUB
Ruled By: MANGOTA J

As was stated in the foregoing paragraphs, the complexity of the matter, and the need on my part to appreciate the circumstances of this case, prompted me to call for the parties' record in the main case. That record was duly provided and I went through its contents. I, in particular, focused my attention ...
More

HH113-15 : GWYNNE ANN STEVENSON vs MAXWELL MATSVIMBO SIBANDA
Ruled By: HUNGWE J

Prior to the pre-trial conference…., the applicant had filed a request for further particulars. That request called on the respondent to provide information with regard to supposed improvements to the property so as to enable the applicant to prepare for trial as stipulated by Order 21 Rule 143.
More

HHH517-20 : INTRATREK ZIMBABWE PL and WICKNELL CHIVHAYO and STANLEY KAZHANJE vs PROSECUTOR GENERAL OF ZIMBABWE and P MATURURE N.O.
Ruled By: CHIKOWERO J and KWENDA J

I will refer to the parties as Intratrek, Chivhayo, Kazhanje, the PG, and the court a quo respectively. Where it is convenient to do so I will refer to the first three (3) parties as the applicants and the last two as the respondents or first and second respondent as ...
More

SC91-20 : CONSTANTINE CHIMAKURE and ALPHA MEDIA HOLDINGS PL vs AMBASSADOR AGRIPPA MUTAMBARA and ESTER MUTAMBARA
Ruled By: GOWORA JA, MAKONI JA and BERE JA

BACKGROUND FACTSThe respondents are husband and wife. They are before this Court pursuant to a suit for defamation instituted by them in the High Court against the appellants herein. In the declaration, the first respondent is described as an Ambassador. It is a description which appears common cause. The first ...
More

HH978-15 : IGNATIUS MASAMBA vs SECRETARY-JUDICIAL SERVICE COMMISSION
Ruled By: MUNANGATI-MANONGWA J

This is an exception by the defendant to the plaintiff's summons and declaration, as amplified by further particulars, on the grounds that the plaintiff's claim does not disclose a cause of action.The defendant further avers that the claim is bad in law.The background to this case is that the plaintiff ...
More

HH13-09 : BORDER TIMBERS LIMITED vs ZIMBABWE REVENUE AUTHORITY
Ruled By: MAKARAU JP

The plaintiff filed a delictual claim against the defendant, seeking damages in the sum of US$709,948.It was specifically alleged in the plaintiff's declaration that the defendant wrongfully and unlawfully sought to levy import duty on certain resin imported by the plaintiff for its manufacturing processes using an incorrect tariff, causing ...
More

SC39-00 : E. FILON vs THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION and THE MINISTER OF LANDS AND WATER RESOURCES
Ruled By: GUBBAY CJ, McNALLY JA and EBRAHIM JA

The appellant was discharged from the Public Service. He had been suspended from duty by the Secretary to his Minister, and, later, served with charges to which were attached certain documents. The letter containing the charges was signed by a Mr Moyo on behalf of the Secretary to the Ministry.The ...
More

HH66-16 : MEIKLES LIMITED vs ZIMBABWE STOCK EXCHANGE and ALBAN CHIRUME
Ruled By: MAKONI J

The plaintiff (Meikles) issued summons against the two defendants, Zimbabwe Stock Exchange (ZSE) and Alban Chirume (Chirume) claiming a declaratur and damages in the sum of $50,000,000.The background to the matter is that on 16 February 2013, the defendants suspended the trading of Meikles shares on the Zimbabwe Stock Exchange.The ...
More

HH68-16 : THE TRUSTEES FOR THE TIME BEING OF THE PHOENIX TRUST N.O. vs GIDEON HWEMENDE and OTHERS
Ruled By: CHIGUMBA J

This is an exception filed on behalf of the plaintiff to the 8th defendant's (Oliver Masomera, in his capacity as executor dative of the estate late Brian James Rhodes) plea and counterclaim.The plaintiff's contention is that the 8th defendant's plea is vague and lacks the averments necessary to sustain a ...
More

HB04-15 : BULAWAYO CITY COUNCIL vs TRISHUL PROPERTIES
Ruled By: TAKUVA J

This is an application for summary judgment in terms of Order 10 Rule 64 of the High Court Rules 1971.The applicant, a local authority is obliged by the law to provide certain services to residents of the City of Bulawayo which services include the provision of road maintenance, refuse collection, ...
More

HH226-18 : SAKUNDA ENERGY (PVT) LTD and SAKUNDA LOGISTICS (PVT) LTD and KUDAKWASHE TAGWIREI vs MAYOR LOGISTICS (PVT) LTD and JUSTICE WADYAJENA
Ruled By: HUNGWE J

In November 2017, the plaintiff (respondent in this application) instituted action against the defendant (the present applicant) claiming the payment of certain amounts of money due and payable in terms of a compromise agreement entered between the parties.The defendant has still not filed a plea. It has, however, filed two ...
More

HH435-18 : CHIDO MATEWA vs ZIMBABWE ELECTRICITY TRANSMISSION & DISTRIBUTION COMPANY
Ruled By: CHIKOWERO J

The plaintiff claimed, that, in or about October 2009, the defendant, through its employees, unlawfully and wrongfully removed electrical gadgets from her farm in Nyazura.On the employees being apprehended, the defendant went on to make a total of four undertakings to restore electricity supply at the farm.The undertakings were accompanied ...
More

HMT26-20 : AYAN TRADING (PRIVATE) LIMITED vs CLEARSKY (PRIVATE) LIMITED
Ruled By: MWAYERA J and MUZENDA J

On 12 November 2019, the court sitting at Mutasa Magistrates Court granted a judgment in favour of the respondent herein and ordered as follows:1. That the defendant be ordered to pay US$314,112=68.2. That the defendant be ordered to pay interest at a present rate.3. That the defendant pays costs of ...
More

HH10-18 : UPENYU MASHANGWA and BLESSING MASHANGWA vs EMMANUEL MAKANDIWA and RUTH MAKANDIWA and UNITED FAMILY INTERNATIONAL CHURCH
Ruled By: MANGOTA J

The plaintiffs are husband and wife. They are members of the third defendant.The first and second defendants are also husband and wife respectively. They are leaders of the third defendant.The third defendant operates under the name United Family International Church.The first and second defendants, as leaders of the third defendant, ...
More

Appealed
SC95-21 : UPENYU MASHANGWA and BLESSING MASHANGWA vs EMMANUEL MAKANDIWA and RUTH MAKANDIWA and UNITED FAMILY INTERNATIONAL CHURCH
Ruled By: GWAUNZA DCJ, MAKONI JA and BERE JA

This is an appeal against the whole consolidated judgment of the High Court dismissing the appellants application in HC4197/18 and granting the respondents application in HC1774/18.FACTUAL BACKGROUNDThe appellants are husband and wife and were, at one point, members of the United Family International Church (“UFIC”), the third respondent in casu.The ...
More

View Appeal
HH40-19 : UPENYU MASHANGWA and ANOR HC4197/18 and EMMANUEL MAKANDIWA and OTHERS HC1774/18 vs EMMANUEL MAKANDIWA and RUTH MAKANDIWA and ANOR and UPENYU MASHANGWA and ANOR
Ruled By: TAGU J

The two matters were consolidated to avoid conflicting judgments as the two matters involving the same parties, and same issues, were ready for arguments at almost the same time before different judges.At the hearing of the two matters, counsels for the parties did not make oral submissions but agreed that ...
More

Back Main menu

Categories

Back to top