HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE DUBE J HARARE, 28 August, 2 & 8, 23 September Urgent Application

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE DUBE J HARARE, 28 August, 2 & 8, 23 September Urgent Application"

Transcription

1 1 RAMWIDE INVESTMENTS (PRIVATE) LIMITED versus RONDEBUILD ZIMBABWE (PRIVATE) LIMITED and MESSENGER OF COURT MATEBELELAND NORTH PROVINCE and WILLIAM MAKUSHU HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE DUBE J HARARE, 28 August, 2 & 8, 23 September 2015 Urgent Application Adv. T. Zhuwara with B. Mataruka, for the applicant T. Moyo with J Bamu, for the 1 st respondent Ms R Muchenjefor the 2 nd respondent Ms R Mutindindi for the 3 rd respondent DUBE J: In this urgent application, the applicant seeks an order stopping the execution of a writ issued at the Magistrates Court under MC 259/14 pending a review of the decision of the court dismissing the applicant s exparte application for stay of execution of the sale of the applicant s assets. The applicant seeks an order on the following terms: INTERIM RELIEF SOUGHT 1. The sale in execution of the applicant s goods under case No. MC 259/14 be and is hereby stayed pending the hearing of the applicant s application for review 2. The 2 nd respondent be and is hereby interdicted from removing the applicant s assets and delivering same to the purchasers. 3. The 2 nd respondent be and is hereby authorised to keep the Applicant s attached assets in his possession pending the hearing of the applicant s application for review. 4. The 2 nd respondent be and is hereby ordered to conduct a valuation of the applicant s attached assets within 48 hours of this order and submit such valuation to the Registrar of this court to form part of the record.

2 2 5. The 2 nd respondent be and is hereby temporarily interdicted from attaching any of the applicant s assets pursuant to the order issued under MC 259/14 until the determination of the application for review filed in HC 7926/ The 1 st respondent be and is hereby ordered to advise the 2 nd respondent of the correct amount that it is owned by the applicant forthwith. The brief background to this application is as follows. The applicant is a company in the construction and civil works business. The first respondent obtained an order against the applicant and caused the sale of the applicant s assets through a writ of execution issued in its favour. The second respondent is the Messenger of Court for Matebeleland North Province. He was involved in the execution of the applicant s property. The third respondent was a participant at the sale and bought a bulldozer at the auction. He is the first respondent s technical manager on a consultancy basis. The applicant avers that its vehicles, plant and machinery was sold by the second respondent at an auction and is currently being transferred to third parties. The third parties were at the time of the filing of this application unknown to the applicant save for the third respondent. The applicant avers that the sale of the applicant s property on 19 August 2015 was irregular in that the amount sought to be recovered by the second respondent was incorrect as it was a lot more than what was owed by the applicant and hence the applicant challenges the amount claimed in the writ. The applicant states that the writ of execution issued on 20 March 2015 claimed payment of the sum of $ yet by this time,the capital debt had been reduced to $ and that this amount was subsequently reduced to $ The applicant states that it got to know of the existence of the writ on 14 July 2015 when it was served with the writ. Since then, the parties have been engaged in negotiations in a bid to settle the matter. It was surprised on 9 August 2015 when it saw an advert in the newspaper for the sale of the assets and that is when it became apparent that the negotiations had failed. The applicant wrote to the first respondent on 14 August 2015 requesting that the first respondent advises the second respondent of the correct amount outstanding. The first respondent refused to heed the call and instructed the second respondent to proceed with the sale to recover an amount that was not due. The sale took place on19 August 2015.The applicant filed this application on 22 August The applicant avers that the sale is tainted with illegality. It submitted that the applicant stands to be severely prejudiced if the sale is allowed to continue on a writ which

3 3 represents an incorrect amount. Further that the second respondent sold the applicant s plant and machinery and recovered $ and hence some of the assets were unnecessarily sold in so far as it sought to recover amounts that were not due. On 20 August 2015, the second respondent advised the applicant to immediately pay the balance of the debt in the sum of $ failing which he would proceed to attach and sell more of the applicant s assets. The applicant contends that the second respondent cannot be allowed to perpetuate an illegality in circumstances where all parties are fully aware that the first respondent seeks to recover more than what is due to it. The applicant argues that the conduct of the first respondent in refusing to amend the writ is not only illegal but further severely prejudicial to the applicant who has no other remedy to protect its rights. The applicant also challenges the sale on the basis that the second respondent failed to comply with the peremptory provisions of the rules. It was alleged that the second respondent merely attached the goods and disposed of the goods without carrying out a proper valuation of the goods and that the law specifically requires valuation of the goods to be sold to be carried out in order to avoid what has happened herein. Thus, goods being sold for an unreasonably low amount and more goods than necessary being attached and sold. The applicant avers that it is likely to suffer prejudice if the sale is allowed to proceed and if the buyers obtain the machinery purchased and the sale is confirmed by the second respondent. The court was told that the applicant employs 54 workers and that they stand to lose their employment if the first respondent persists with the unlawful conduct and its business grounds to a halt. The first respondent defends the application. The respondent challenged the urgency of the matter. It was submitted on behalf of the first respondent that the applicant has been aware of the writ of execution since 14 July 2014 and became aware of the sale in execution on 9 August 2015 when it saw the advertisement of the sale in execution. The first respondent submitted that the need to act arose then. The first respondent submitted that the applicant has been aware that that the respondent was not interested in its various proposals for settlement and ought to have approached the court for redress earlier. Further, that nothing was done to avert the sale. The urgency of the matter has already fallen away since the sale has gone through and a stay of execution is no longer appropriate. The auction sale went ahead and the respective bidders paid for and collected their machinery. The mischief that this application seeks to avert has already materialised. This court cannot reverse the sale 4 days after the event and a sale in execution that is fully consummated.

4 4 On the merits, the first respondent challenges the relief sought on the basis that it is incompetent in that the sale has already gone through and there is nothing to stay. It was submitted on behalf of the first respondent that there is confusion over the causa for the present application. The respondent submitted that the applicant in its founding affidavit sets out the basis of the present application as seeking to stay the ongoing writ issued by the Magistrates Court pending review of the decision of the Magistrates Court dismissing the applicant s exparte application for stay of the sale of the assets. That whilst the decision that is in issue is that of Magistrate Pabwe, the application does not mention what the decision of the magistrate was. The first respondent contends that the causa was abandoned with the applicant seeking a review of the second respondent s actions and that it is unclear what application is before the court. The first respondent acknowledges that the amount of $ is what is owed to it but that more than that amount was required to be recovered as the auctioneer and the second respondent are entitled to recover their costs from the sale in execution as well as interest in terms of the court order and writ of execution. The amount recovered at the sale falls short of what is due. It submitted that the third respondent purchased the machinery and has every right to participate at the sale. The second respondent filed an affidavit to explain his conduct during the attachment and the subsequent sale. He will abide by the decision of the court. He served a warrant of execution on the applicant on 14 July He took an inventory of the property that was pointed out to him. He valued it and attached what he deemed would be sufficient to satisfy the warrant. On 28 July he served a notice of the sale on the applicant and placed an advert of the sale in the paper. He sold the property on the 19 th of August and gave the machinery sold at the auction to the purchasers. The third respondent submitted as follows. He bought the property in his own capacity after seeing the advert in the paper. He is not employed by the first respondent but is a consultant for the first respondent. He bought a bulldozer at the sale and paid for it. He has since taken possession of the machinery. He stands to be prejudiced if the sale is reversed as he has parted with his money. On the issue regarding the urgency of the matter, he submitted that the applicant has been aware of the imminence of the sale in execution since 9 August 2015 and he ought to have made an application staying the sale then. The applicant chose to wait for the day of reckoning. The urgency of the matter is self-created.

5 5 A litigant who wishes to have his matter dealt with on an urgent basis is required to show that the matter cannot wait in the sense that if the matter is not dealt with immediately he stands to suffer irreparable harm. He must also show by his conduct that he treated the matter as urgent when he became aware of the harm or danger that was imminent. See Kuwarega v Registrar General and Anor 1998 (1) ZLR 188 for this approach. The writ of execution which is the subject of this execution was served on applicant on 14 July The applicant chose to engage the first respondent and reportedly entered into negotiations with it in a bid to settle the matter. On 28 July the applicant was served with a notice of the sale by the second respondent. It was apparent at this stage that the first respondent was determined on executing the order issued in its favour. The applicant did not, despite the knowledge that the first respondent was about to execute the order, approach the courts for redress. It avers that it was still engaging the first respondent. The period taken by the applicant in negotiating was unjustifiably long. The applicant suggests that the negotiations took place between 14 July to about 9 August 2015 when the advertisement of the sale appeared in the paper. That is a period in excess of three weeks. It ought to have dawned on the applicant after the notice of the sale was served and especially after an advert of the sale of its property was published in the papers that the other side was desirous of proceeding with the sale. Instead, the applicant continued to try and engage the other side. The applicant ought at that stage to have approached the courts for redress. After the advert of 9 August 2015, the applicant took 5 days to write to the respondent s legal practitioners. It only did so on 14 August 2015 when it requested the correct outstanding amount. No response came from the first respondent and the sale proceeded. There is no explanation regarding the applicant s failure to immediately seek any redress from the courts after it failed to get a response from the first respondent. The events after the advert do not disclose that the applicant treated the matter with the urgency deserved. The applicant was negligent in this respect. Although the applicant sought to get redress by launching an exparte application seeking to stay the sale on 19 August with the Magistrates Court, it was too late. The exparte application was dismissed. That application was not well timed as the sale went through that same day. The applicant still did not assert itself timeously. The need to act arose when the applicant became aware that the applicant was desirous of executing to recover what was owed. The moment it became aware of the intended sale, that is after the notice of the sale, the applicant was required to assert itself and

6 6 take legal action to stop the imminent sale. The applicant foolishly chose to try and engage the first respondent instead of taking the required action. The applicant sat on its laurels and thereby failed to assert its rights. The applicant ought to have approached the courts at this stage. The concept of the need to act entails the applicant taking steps to avert the harm or danger that is imminent and in this case the sale that was imminent. The need to act entails approaching the courts for redress. A litigant faced with an execution that is imminent is expected to assert itself and approach the court timeously to get redress. Where he fails to do so and chooses instead to negotiate with the other party without approaching the courts, that litigant does so at its own peril. This is so especially where the negotiations drag on and it is apparent that the other party is unwilling to negotiate and the negotiations do not ultimately bear the desired fruit. Such period taken in negotiating is not taken into account and does not suffice as appropriate action taken to address the danger posed or avert the sale. The applicant asserts that it was surprised to see an advert regarding the sale in the Chronicle. There is proof that it was served with the notice of the sale on 28 July The applicant did not allude to this notice in its application. The applicant is not being candid with the court. Litigants who come before the courts and hide information in the hope that they will succeed in hiding information and hoodwink the courts only have themselves to blame when they get penalised for such conduct. This sort of conduct deserves to be censured. It deserves to be penalised by an order of costs on a higher scale. The applicant only lodged this application on 22 August, well after the sale. The applicant waited until the day of reckoning to take action. By the time the application was lodged, the sale had taken place four days before on 19 th August The day of reckoning came and passed. The horse has already bolted out of the stables. The sale has taken place and purchasers have all taken possession of their new possessions. There are no attached goods in the possession of the second respondent. The sale has been confirmed. The applicant must live with the consequences of its inaction. This is not the sort of urgency anticipated by the rules. I view that the urgency of this matter is self-created. The certificate of urgency filed in support of this application does not explain the delays encountered in bringing this application. The certificate of urgency simply outlines the reasons why the applicant is likely to suffer irreparable harm. It makes no effort to address and outline the conduct of the applicant when it became aware of the execution that was imminent. A certificate of urgency which does not address the issue regarding whether an

7 7 applicant treated the matter as urgent and fails to address the delays existent on the papers is no adequate certificate of urgency and cannot be said to disclose the urgency of the matter. The only way in which a certificate of urgency can disclose if the applicant treated the matter with urgency is to outline the conduct and action taken when a litigant becomes aware of the danger that is imminent. The certificate of urgency does not disclose urgency. The harm sought to be avoided stands in money and can be cured by damages. The fact that the applicant has employees that will lose their employment should this company ground to a halt is a moral consideration. I am not satisfied that the applicant has shown that this matter deserves to jump the queue and be dealt with on urgent basis. The matter is not urgent, and is struck of the roll. The applicant is to bear the respondents costs on an Attorney Client Scale. Gill Godlonton & Gerrans, applicant s legal practitioners Tamula Moyo and Partners, 1 st respondent s legal practitioners Nenjy/Nyamapfene Law Practice, 2 nd respondent s legal practitioners

CHANETSA MHARI versus THE PRESIDING MAGISTRATE MR MANGOTI N.O and THE PROSECUTOR GENERAL and THE STATE and THE OFFICER IN CHARGE HARARE REMAND PRISON

CHANETSA MHARI versus THE PRESIDING MAGISTRATE MR MANGOTI N.O and THE PROSECUTOR GENERAL and THE STATE and THE OFFICER IN CHARGE HARARE REMAND PRISON 1 CHANETSA MHARI versus THE PRESIDING MAGISTRATE MR MANGOTI N.O and THE PROSECUTOR GENERAL and THE STATE and THE OFFICER IN CHARGE HARARE REMAND PRISON HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE CHIGUMBA J HARARE, 5 March

More information

HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE DUBE J HARARE, 23, 24 September 2015 and 3 February Urgent Application

HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE DUBE J HARARE, 23, 24 September 2015 and 3 February Urgent Application MANICA ZIMBABWE LTD versus GRINDSBERG INVESTMENTS (PVT) LTD BOLLORE AFRICA LOGISTICS ZIMBABWE (PVT) LTD THE HONOURABLE MINISTER OF INDUSTRY AND COMMERCE N.O. THE HONOURABLE MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE MECHANISATION

More information

HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE ZHOU J HARARE, 3 June 2014 & 11 March Opposed Application

HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE ZHOU J HARARE, 3 June 2014 & 11 March Opposed Application 1 VALLEY MINING (PRIVATE) LIMITED ISAAC NJAINJAI CONNECT INVESTMENTS (PRIVATE) LIMITED FORGET YEBO NJAINJAI versus AFRICAN BANKING CORPORATION t/a BANC ABC MIRIRAI APOLONIA WASHAYA THE SHERIFF OF ZIMBABWE

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA KWAZULU NATAL DIVISION, DURBAN AND STANDARD BANK OF SOUTH AFRICA LIMITED JUDGMENT

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA KWAZULU NATAL DIVISION, DURBAN AND STANDARD BANK OF SOUTH AFRICA LIMITED JUDGMENT SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA KWAZULU NATAL

More information

DON MOYO in his capacity as the Chairman, Ad Hoc Arbitrators Committee, Highlanders and Dynamos Banc ABC Semi-Final Match N.O.

DON MOYO in his capacity as the Chairman, Ad Hoc Arbitrators Committee, Highlanders and Dynamos Banc ABC Semi-Final Match N.O. HIGHLANDERS FOOTBALL CLUB Versus DYNAMOS FOOTBALL CLUB PREMIER SOCCER LEAGUE BANC ABC (PRVIATE) LIMITED CUTHBERT CHITIMA DON MOYO in his capacity as the Chairman, Ad Hoc Arbitrators Committee, Highlanders

More information

AFRICAN STAR DIAMONDS (PVT) LTD versus JUDY NYAMUCHANJA and MEMORY MUNHENGA and SHERIFF OF THE HIGH COURT N.O

AFRICAN STAR DIAMONDS (PVT) LTD versus JUDY NYAMUCHANJA and MEMORY MUNHENGA and SHERIFF OF THE HIGH COURT N.O 1 AFRICAN STAR DIAMONDS (PVT) LTD versus JUDY NYAMUCHANJA and MEMORY MUNHENGA and SHERIFF OF THE HIGH COURT N.O HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE MAKONI J HARARE, 16 February and 17 May 2017 Opposed application T.

More information

1 HH HC10222/12 Ref Case No. HC6273/10. DEPUTY SHERIFF, KAROI versus EDWARD CHIGANGO & 55 OTHERS and FRESH BAKERY, KAROI and DAVID GOVERE

1 HH HC10222/12 Ref Case No. HC6273/10. DEPUTY SHERIFF, KAROI versus EDWARD CHIGANGO & 55 OTHERS and FRESH BAKERY, KAROI and DAVID GOVERE 1 DEPUTY SHERIFF, KAROI versus EDWARD CHIGANGO & 55 OTHERS and FRESH BAKERY, KAROI and DAVID GOVERE HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE TSANGA J HARARE, November 1 2013 & 18 June 2014 Opposed Application Applicant

More information

MEIKLES LIMITED versus ZIMBABWE STOCK EXCHANGE and ALBAN CHIRUME. HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE MAKONI J HARARE, 2 July 2015 and 13 January 2016

MEIKLES LIMITED versus ZIMBABWE STOCK EXCHANGE and ALBAN CHIRUME. HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE MAKONI J HARARE, 2 July 2015 and 13 January 2016 1 MEIKLES LIMITED versus ZIMBABWE STOCK EXCHANGE and ALBAN CHIRUME HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE MAKONI J HARARE, 2 July 2015 and 13 January 2016 Opposed Application Exception and Special Plea in Bar T Magwaliba,

More information

THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, IN JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT

THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, IN JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA Reportable THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, IN JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT Case no: J1773/12 In the matter between: VUSI MASHIANE and DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS Applicant First Respondent

More information

NSIKAYOMUZI GOODMAN GOQO DURBAN SOUTH THIRD RESPONDENT JUDGMENT. 1] The applicant approached this court on the basis of urgency, ex-parte

NSIKAYOMUZI GOODMAN GOQO DURBAN SOUTH THIRD RESPONDENT JUDGMENT. 1] The applicant approached this court on the basis of urgency, ex-parte 1 IN THE KWAZULU-NATAL HIGH COURT, DURBAN NOT REPORTABLE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA Case no. 6094/10 In the matter between: NSIKAYOMUZI GOODMAN GOQO PLAINTIFF and JOHANNES GEORGE KRUGER N.O. DALES BROTHERS

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (EAST LONDON CIRCUIT LOCAL DIVISION) CASE NO. EL39/11 ECD 139/11. In the matter between. and JUDGMENT HARTLE, J:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (EAST LONDON CIRCUIT LOCAL DIVISION) CASE NO. EL39/11 ECD 139/11. In the matter between. and JUDGMENT HARTLE, J: 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (EAST LONDON CIRCUIT LOCAL DIVISION) CASE NO. EL39/11 ECD 139/11 In the matter between LAND LORD PROPERTIES (PTY) LTD MASIBULELE DONALD STURU PASIYA First Applicant

More information

known as plot number 13 Glynham, Masvingo ( the property ). It formed part of the estate

known as plot number 13 Glynham, Masvingo ( the property ). It formed part of the estate 1 DISTRIBUTABLE (29) ALFRED MUCHINI v (1) ELIZABETH MARY ADAMS (2) SHEPHERD MAKONYERE N.O (3) ESTATE LATE ALVIN ROY ADAMS (4) REGISTRAR OF DEEDS (5) MASTER OF THE HIGH COURT SUPREME COURT OF ZIMBABWE ZIYAMBI

More information

MEMORANDUM TO PRACTITIONERS RE: PROCEDURE IN THE PRETORIA URGENT MOTION COURT

MEMORANDUM TO PRACTITIONERS RE: PROCEDURE IN THE PRETORIA URGENT MOTION COURT MEMORANDUM TO PRACTITIONERS RE: PROCEDURE IN THE PRETORIA URGENT MOTION COURT [1] Urgent applications must be brought in accordance with Rule 6 and the guidelines set out in cases such as Republikeinse

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA CASE NO:83409/2015 DELETE WHICHEVER IS NOT APPLICABLE (1) REPORTABLE: YES/NO (2) OF INTEREST TO OTHERS JUDGES: YES/NO (3) REVISED...... DATE

More information

IN THE INDUSTRIAL COURT OF SWAZILAND JUDGEMENT

IN THE INDUSTRIAL COURT OF SWAZILAND JUDGEMENT IN THE INDUSTRIAL COURT OF SWAZILAND JUDGEMENT In the matter between:- DR BHADALA T. MAMBA CASE NO. 418/2015 APPLICANT AND CENTRAL BANK OF SWAZILAND SIKHUMBUZO SIMELANE 1 ST RESPONDENT 2 ND RESPONDENT

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, FREE STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, FREE STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, FREE STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN Reportable: YES/NO Of Interest to other Judges: YES/NO Circulate to Magistrates: YES/NO In the matter between: Appeal number: A1/2016

More information

HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE MAFUSIRE J HARARE, 14 & 17 February Urgent chamber application

HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE MAFUSIRE J HARARE, 14 & 17 February Urgent chamber application 1 CHARLES MASANGO and GLORIA MASAWI versus MINISTER OF PRIMARY & SECONDARY EDUCATION N.O. and PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION and THE DISTRICT SCHOOLS INSPECTOR, MBERENGWA N.O. and THE HEADMASTER, CHINGOMA HIGH

More information

(EASTERN CAPE PORT ELIZABETH) CASE NO.: 812/2012

(EASTERN CAPE PORT ELIZABETH) CASE NO.: 812/2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (EASTERN CAPE PORT ELIZABETH) CASE NO.: 812/2012 In the matter between: CLIMAX CONCRETE PRODUCTS CC t/a CLIMAX CONCRETE PRODUCTS CC Registration Number CK 1985/014313/23

More information

THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT. MICHAEL KAWALYA-KAGWA Applicant

THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT. MICHAEL KAWALYA-KAGWA Applicant THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT Not reportable Case no: J 2406/16 In the matter between: MICHAEL KAWALYA-KAGWA Applicant and DEVELOPMENT BANK OF SOUTHERN AFRICA Respondent Heard:

More information

HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE DUBE J HARARE, 8 October 2015 & 3 February Opposed Matter. D. Ochieng, for applicants E. Matinenga, for respondents

HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE DUBE J HARARE, 8 October 2015 & 3 February Opposed Matter. D. Ochieng, for applicants E. Matinenga, for respondents THE MILTON GARDENS ASSOCIATION and SYRIL MUPANGURI MUPANGURI versus TECLA MVEMBE and CHAMPION CONSTRUCTORS (PVT) LIMITED and THE REGISTRAR OF DEEDS, HARARE and THE SURVEYOR GENERAL 1 HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE

More information

ZIMBABWE BANKING CORPORATION LIMITED v SAIDI MBALAKA

ZIMBABWE BANKING CORPORATION LIMITED v SAIDI MBALAKA 1 DISTRIBUTABLE (60) ZIMBABWE BANKING CORPORATION LIMITED v SAIDI MBALAKA SUPREME COURT OF ZIMBABWE GWAUNZA JA, GOWORA JA & MAVANGIRA AJA BULAWAYO, AUGUST 3 & 5 2015 D Tivadar, for the appellant L Nkomo,

More information

THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, HELD AT JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT

THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, HELD AT JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, HELD AT JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT Reportable Case no: JS 1505/16 In the matter between: MOQHAKA LOCAL MUNICIPALITY Applicant and FUSI JOHN MOTLOUNG SHERIFF OF THE HIGH COURT,

More information

HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE CHIGUMBA J HARARE, 8 February 2016 & 9 March Urgent Chamber Application. K. Gama, for applicant S. Hwacha, for respondent

HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE CHIGUMBA J HARARE, 8 February 2016 & 9 March Urgent Chamber Application. K. Gama, for applicant S. Hwacha, for respondent 1 DR JABULANI CHARLES KUCHENA versus THE SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CENTRE HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE CHIGUMBA J HARARE, 8 February 2016 & 9 March 2016 Urgent Chamber Application K.

More information

1 HH HC 2395/14 Ref Case No HC 12041/12

1 HH HC 2395/14 Ref Case No HC 12041/12 NGUNGUNYANA HOUSING COOPERATIVE versus EGOROCK INVESTMENTS [PVT] LTD 1 HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE MAFUSIRE J HARARE: 19 May 2016 & 5 May 2017 Opposed application I. Sithole, for the applicant No appearance

More information

FANELE MAQELE and ALDRIN NYABANDO and TENDAI WARAMBWA versus VICE CHANCELLOR, PROFESSOR N.M BHEBHE N.O and MIDLANDS STATE UNIVERSITY

FANELE MAQELE and ALDRIN NYABANDO and TENDAI WARAMBWA versus VICE CHANCELLOR, PROFESSOR N.M BHEBHE N.O and MIDLANDS STATE UNIVERSITY 1 FANELE MAQELE and ALDRIN NYABANDO and TENDAI WARAMBWA versus VICE CHANCELLOR, PROFESSOR N.M BHEBHE N.O and MIDLANDS STATE UNIVERSITY HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE MATHONSI J BULAWAYO 20 MAY 2016 AND 27 MAY

More information

REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT UNION OF SOUTH AFRICA

REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT UNION OF SOUTH AFRICA REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT Not Reportable Case no: J 603/15 TRANSPORT AND ALLIED WORKERS UNION OF SOUTH AFRICA Applicant And ALGOA BUS COMPANY (PTY)

More information

THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA (COMMERCIAL COURT DIVISION)

THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA (COMMERCIAL COURT DIVISION) THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA (COMMERCIAL COURT DIVISION) MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 733 OF 2005 (Arising out of H.C.C.S. No. 1018 of 2004) ROSEMARY ELEANOR KARAMAGI

More information

REPUBLIC OF NAMIBIA HIGH COURT OF NAMIBIA MAIN DIVISION, WINDHOEK JUDGMENT PDS HOLDINGS (BVI) LTD DEPUTY SHERIFF FOR THE DISTRICT OF WINDHOEK

REPUBLIC OF NAMIBIA HIGH COURT OF NAMIBIA MAIN DIVISION, WINDHOEK JUDGMENT PDS HOLDINGS (BVI) LTD DEPUTY SHERIFF FOR THE DISTRICT OF WINDHOEK REPUBLIC OF NAMIBIA HIGH COURT OF NAMIBIA MAIN DIVISION, WINDHOEK JUDGMENT Case no: HC-MD-CIV-MOT-GEN-2017/00163 In the matter between: PDS HOLDINGS (BVI) LTD APPLICANT and MINISTER OF LAND REFORM DANIEL

More information

LABOUR COURT RULES, 2017 ARRANGEMENT OF RULES PART I PRELIMINARY

LABOUR COURT RULES, 2017 ARRANGEMENT OF RULES PART I PRELIMINARY Statutory Instrument 150 of 2017 LABOUR COURT RULES, 2017 SI 150/2017, 8/2018. ARRANGEMENT OF RULES PART I PRELIMINARY Rule 1. Title. 2. Application. 3. Interpretation. 4. Computation of time and certain

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG CASE NO: 30037/2015 (1) REPORTABLE: YES / NO (2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: YES/NO (3) REVISED... DATE...

More information

The registered office of the Company is at De Waterkant Building, 10 Helderberg Street, Stellenbosch.

The registered office of the Company is at De Waterkant Building, 10 Helderberg Street, Stellenbosch. The Company was, at the instance of ABSA Bank Limited ( ABSA ), provisionally wound up by order of the Western Cape High Court, Cape Town, on 10 June 2010 which order was made final on 27 July 2010. The

More information

B. B. Applicant. J. S. B. Respondent JUDGMENT. [1] This is the return day of a rule nisi obtained by the applicant on an urgent

B. B. Applicant. J. S. B. Respondent JUDGMENT. [1] This is the return day of a rule nisi obtained by the applicant on an urgent SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA EASTERN CAPE LOCAL

More information

HARARE HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE MAKONI J HARARE, 6 July 2017 & 28 February Opposed Matter

HARARE HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE MAKONI J HARARE, 6 July 2017 & 28 February Opposed Matter 1 PROFESSOR PATSON ZVANDASARA versus DR GODFREY SAUNGWEME DR MADEINE MAKONESE BELVEDERE NURSING HOME (PVT) LTD FINPOWER INVESTMENTS (PVT) LTD MAINBRAIN TRADING (PVT) LTD REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES N.O HARARE

More information

REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE GAUTENG DIVISION OF THE HIGH COURT, PRETORIA

REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE GAUTENG DIVISION OF THE HIGH COURT, PRETORIA 1 REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE GAUTENG DIVISION OF THE HIGH COURT, PRETORIA DELETE WHICH IS NOT APPLICABLE [1] REPORTABLE: YES / NO [2] OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: YES / NO [3] REVISED DATE SIGNATURE

More information

RULES BOARD FOR COURTS OF LAW ACT, 1985 (ACT NO. 107 OF 1985)

RULES BOARD FOR COURTS OF LAW ACT, 1985 (ACT NO. 107 OF 1985) Justice and Constitutional Development, Department of/ Justisie en Staatkundige Ontwikkeling, Departement van R. 1272 Rules Board for Courts of Law Act (107/1985): Amendment of the Rules of High Court

More information

Jayasinghe V. The Attorney General And Others file:///c:/documents and Settings/kapilan/My Documents/Google Talk...

Jayasinghe V. The Attorney General And Others file:///c:/documents and Settings/kapilan/My Documents/Google Talk... 1 of 9 4/19/2011 3:18 PM JAYASINGHE v. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND OTHERS 74 SUPREME COURT. FERNANDO, J. PERERA, J. AND WIJETUNGA, J. S.C. APPLICATION N0. 86/94 OCTOBER 3, 1994. Fundamental Rights Prolonged

More information

Republic of South Africa IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WESTERN CAPE HIGH COURT, CAPE TOWN) MR VIDEO (PTY) LTD...Applicant / Respondent

Republic of South Africa IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WESTERN CAPE HIGH COURT, CAPE TOWN) MR VIDEO (PTY) LTD...Applicant / Respondent Republic of South Africa IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WESTERN CAPE HIGH COURT, CAPE TOWN) In the matter between: CASE NO: 18783/2011 MR VIDEO (PTY) LTD...Applicant / Respondent and BROADWAY DVD CITY

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (EASTERN CAPE LOCAL DIVISION, MTHATHA) CASE NO.: 1355/2013. In the matter between: And JUDGMENT BESHE J:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (EASTERN CAPE LOCAL DIVISION, MTHATHA) CASE NO.: 1355/2013. In the matter between: And JUDGMENT BESHE J: IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (EASTERN CAPE LOCAL DIVISION, MTHATHA) In the matter between: NANDIPHA ELTER JACK CASE NO.: 1355/2013 Plaintiff And ANDILE BALENI NS NOMBAMBELA INCORPORATED First Defendant

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (NORTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT, PRETORIA)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (NORTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT, PRETORIA) IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (NORTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT, PRETORIA) NOT REPORTABLE CASE NO: 26952/09 DATE: 11/06/2009 In the matter between: TIMOTHY DAVID DAVENPORT PHILIP Applicant and TUTOR TRUST

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA KWA-ZULU NATAL LOCAL DIVISION, DURBAN

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA KWA-ZULU NATAL LOCAL DIVISION, DURBAN IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA KWA-ZULU NATAL LOCAL DIVISION, DURBAN In the matter between: CASE NO.: 11174/15 NAYESAN REDDY Applicant And LERENDAREN REDDY SHERIFF OF THE COURT, DURBAN COASTAL SHERIFF

More information

IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG

IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG Reportable/Not Reportable Case no: J 2591/17 In the matter between: FAIS OMBUD Applicant and MPHO RAMETSI First Respondent COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION

More information

HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE BERE J HARARE, 20 and 26 March Opposed Application. T. Mpofu, for the applicants S. Moyo, for the respondents

HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE BERE J HARARE, 20 and 26 March Opposed Application. T. Mpofu, for the applicants S. Moyo, for the respondents CFI HOLDINGS LTD LANGFORD ESTATES (1962) (PVT) LTD versus COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION CENTRE FBC BANK LIMITED AGRIBANK OF ZIMBABWE LIMITED CBZ BANK LIMITED INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT BANK OF ZIMBABWE LIMITED

More information

REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, PORT ELIZABETH JUDGMENT

REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, PORT ELIZABETH JUDGMENT 1 REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, PORT ELIZABETH JUDGMENT Not Reportable CASE NO: P 322/15 In the matter between ANDILE FANI Applicant and First Respondent EXECUTIVE MAYOR,

More information

Civil Procedure II - Part II: Civil proceedings in the High Court Multi Choice Q & A 2014 S1 3 April 2014: Unique number:

Civil Procedure II - Part II: Civil proceedings in the High Court Multi Choice Q & A 2014 S1 3 April 2014: Unique number: 1 Civil Procedure II - Part II: Civil proceedings in the High Court Multi Choice Q & A 2014 S1 3 April 2014: Unique number: 883833 QUESTION 1: M issues summons against N for damages as a result of breach

More information

COURTS OF LAW AMENDMENT BILL

COURTS OF LAW AMENDMENT BILL REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA COURTS OF LAW AMENDMENT BILL (As amended by the Portfolio Committee on Justice and Correctional Services (National Assembly)) (The English text is the offıcial text of the Bill)

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (EASTERN CAPE, MTHATHA) CASE NO.: 943/2007. In the matter between: And

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (EASTERN CAPE, MTHATHA) CASE NO.: 943/2007. In the matter between: And IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (EASTERN CAPE, MTHATHA) In the matter between: THABO MTHEMBU CASE NO.: 943/2007 Plaintiff And MEMBER OF THE EXECUTIVE COUNCIL FOR EDUCATION, EASTERN CAPE BUYISILE ZOKO

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (CAPE OF GOOD HOPE PROVINCIAL DIVISION) GARDEN CITIES (INCORPORATED ASSOCIATION NOT FOR GAIN)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (CAPE OF GOOD HOPE PROVINCIAL DIVISION) GARDEN CITIES (INCORPORATED ASSOCIATION NOT FOR GAIN) REPORTABLE IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (CAPE OF GOOD HOPE PROVINCIAL DIVISION) Before the Hon Mr Justice NJ Yekiso In the matter between: GARDEN CITIES (INCORPORATED ASSOCIATION NOT FOR GAIN) Case

More information

EASTERN CAPE HIGH COURT: PORT ELIZABETH

EASTERN CAPE HIGH COURT: PORT ELIZABETH IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA EASTERN CAPE HIGH COURT: PORT ELIZABETH CASE NO: 1723/07 Heard on: 17/06/11 Delivered on: 02/08/11 In the matter between: STEVE VORSTER First Applicant MATTHYS JOHANNES

More information

NCUBE v DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS AND OTHERS 2010 (6) SA 166 (ECG)

NCUBE v DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS AND OTHERS 2010 (6) SA 166 (ECG) 1 of 6 2012/11/06 03:08 PM NCUBE v DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS AND OTHERS 2010 (6) SA 166 (ECG) 2010 (6) SA p166 Citation 2010 (6) SA 166 (ECG) Case No 41/2009 Court Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown

More information

COURTS OF LAW AMENDMENT BILL

COURTS OF LAW AMENDMENT BILL REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA COURTS OF LAW AMENDMENT BILL (As introduced in the National Assembly (proposed section 75); explanatory summary of Bill published in Government Gazette No. 39943 of 22 April 2016)

More information

HIS HONOUR JUDGE S P GRENFELL Between :

HIS HONOUR JUDGE S P GRENFELL Between : Case No: 6LS90043 (previously 1995 P 0017) Neutral Citation Number:[2006] EWHC 2025 (QB) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE QUEENS BENCH DIVISION LEEDS DISTRICT REGISTRY Before : HIS HONOUR JUDGE S P GRENFELL

More information

REPORTABLE JUDGMENT. [1] The institution of co-ownership harbours a conflict between the rights of

REPORTABLE JUDGMENT. [1] The institution of co-ownership harbours a conflict between the rights of 1 SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy REPORTABLE IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA EASTERN

More information

IN THE GAUTENG DIVISION OF THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, PRETORIA

IN THE GAUTENG DIVISION OF THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, PRETORIA V IN THE GAUTENG DIVISION OF THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, PRETORIA Not reportable In the matter between - CASE NO: 2015/54483 HENDRIK ADRIAAN ROETS Applicant And MINISTER OF SAFETY AND SECURITY MINISTER

More information

IMMIGRATION ADVISERS LICENSING ACT 2007

IMMIGRATION ADVISERS LICENSING ACT 2007 IMMIGRATION ADVISERS LICENSING ACT 2007 COMPLAINTS AND DISCIPLINARY PROCEDURES: PARTS 44 55 44. Complaints against immigration advisers (1) Any person may make a complaint to the Registrar concerning the

More information

BERMUDA RULES OF THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR BERMUDA BX 1 / 1965

BERMUDA RULES OF THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR BERMUDA BX 1 / 1965 QUO FA T A F U E R N T BERMUDA RULES OF THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR BERMUDA BX 1 / 1965 [made under section 9 of the Court of Appeal Act 1964 and brought into operation on 2 August 1965] TABLE OF CONTENTS

More information

MOLEFI THOABALA INCORPORATED

MOLEFI THOABALA INCORPORATED FREE STATE HIGH COURT, BLOEMFONTEIN REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA In the matter between:- Case No.: 2289/2013 MOLEFI THOABALA INCORPORATED Applicant and MANGAUNG METROPOLITAN First Respondent MUNICIPALITY THE

More information

FORM A FILING SHEET FOR EASTERN CAPE JUDGMENT

FORM A FILING SHEET FOR EASTERN CAPE JUDGMENT 1 FORM A FILING SHEET FOR EASTERN CAPE JUDGMENT 025/2005 ECJ NO : PARTIES: Body Corporate of Sunninghill Park And Nobumba and Others REFERENCE NUMBERS - Registrar: 2019/04 DATE HEARD: 17 February 2005

More information

IN THE LAND CLAIMS COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA

IN THE LAND CLAIMS COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE LAND CLAIMS COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA Held at RANDBURG on 25 October 1999 before Gildenhuys J, Goldblatt (assessor) Decided on: 30 November 1999 CASE NUMBER: LCC116/98 In the case of: THE FORMER HIGHLANDS

More information

[1] The above matter came before me on 11 April 2017 by way of urgency.

[1] The above matter came before me on 11 April 2017 by way of urgency. CASE NO: 20371/2017 (1) (2) (3) REPORT ABLE: YES / NO OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: YES/NO REVISED. DATE SIGNATURE In the matter between: THE LAW SOCIETY OF THE NORTHERN PROVINCES Applicant and SIFELANE

More information

STEVEN SHONHIWA and BLUE OYESTER ENGINEERING (PRIVATE) LIMITED versus TOR-EKA (PRIVATE) LIMITED. HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE ZHOU J HARARE, 3 June 2014

STEVEN SHONHIWA and BLUE OYESTER ENGINEERING (PRIVATE) LIMITED versus TOR-EKA (PRIVATE) LIMITED. HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE ZHOU J HARARE, 3 June 2014 1 STEVEN SHONHIWA and BLUE OYESTER ENGINEERING (PRIVATE) LIMITED versus TOR-EKA (PRIVATE) LIMITED HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE ZHOU J HARARE, 3 June 2014 Opposed Application T. L. Mapuranga, for the applicants

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE, A.D BANANA ENTERPRISES LIMITED

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE, A.D BANANA ENTERPRISES LIMITED CLAIM NO. 400 OF 2007 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE, A.D. 2007 BETWEEN: BANANA ENTERPRISES LIMITED Claimant AND NOVA TOLEDO LIMITED PROVIDENT BANK AND TRUST OF BELIZE LIMITED Defendant Interpleader Claimant

More information

ZIMBABWE SCHOOLS EXAMINATION COUNCIL versus MOSES H CHINHENGO (FORMER JUDGE) N.O and TARCH PRINT ZIMBABWE (PVT) LTD

ZIMBABWE SCHOOLS EXAMINATION COUNCIL versus MOSES H CHINHENGO (FORMER JUDGE) N.O and TARCH PRINT ZIMBABWE (PVT) LTD 1 ZIMBABWE SCHOOLS EXAMINATION COUNCIL versus MOSES H CHINHENGO (FORMER JUDGE) N.O and TARCH PRINT ZIMBABWE (PVT) LTD HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE MATANDA-MOYO J HARARE, 5 February 2018 & 28 March 2018 Opposed

More information

FOURTH SECTION. CASE OF BARTKUS AND KULIKAUSKAS v. LITHUANIA. (Application no /13) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 9 January 2018

FOURTH SECTION. CASE OF BARTKUS AND KULIKAUSKAS v. LITHUANIA. (Application no /13) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 9 January 2018 FOURTH SECTION CASE OF BARTKUS AND KULIKAUSKAS v. LITHUANIA (Application no. 80208/13) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 9 January 2018 This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 2 of

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA NORTHERN CAPE DIVISION, KIMBERLEY

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA NORTHERN CAPE DIVISION, KIMBERLEY Reportable: YES/ NO Circulate to Judges: YES/ NO Circulate to Magistrates: YES/ NO Circulate to Regional Magistrates: YES/ NO In the matter between: IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA NORTHERN CAPE DIVISION,

More information

CURATELLE ACT. Act 12 of October 1973 ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS PART I PRELIMINARY. 1. Short title 2. Interpretation

CURATELLE ACT. Act 12 of October 1973 ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS PART I PRELIMINARY. 1. Short title 2. Interpretation CURATELLE ACT Act 12 of 1973 1 October 1973 ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS 1. Short title 2. Interpretation PART I PRELIMINARY PART II THE CURATOR 3. Office of Curator 4. Curator to administer certain estates

More information

THE SMALL CLAIMS COURT ACT (No. 2 of 2016) THE SMALL CLAIMS COURTS RULES, 2017

THE SMALL CLAIMS COURT ACT (No. 2 of 2016) THE SMALL CLAIMS COURTS RULES, 2017 LEGAL NOTICE NO. ARRANGEMENT OF RULES THE SMALL CLAIMS COURT ACT (No. 2 of 2016) THE SMALL CLAIMS COURTS RULES, 2017 1 Short title and commencement 2 Interpretation 3 Filing a claim 4 Serving the statement

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (TRANSVAAL PROVINCIAL DIVISION) LTD t/a AVIS RENT A CAR NDWAMATO PHINIAS LAVHENGWA JUDGMENT

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (TRANSVAAL PROVINCIAL DIVISION) LTD t/a AVIS RENT A CAR NDWAMATO PHINIAS LAVHENGWA JUDGMENT SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (TRANSVAAL PROVINCIAL

More information

FIJI ISLANDS HIGH COURT ACT (CHAPTER 13) HIGH COURT (AMENDMENT) RULES 1998

FIJI ISLANDS HIGH COURT ACT (CHAPTER 13) HIGH COURT (AMENDMENT) RULES 1998 FIJI ISLANDS HIGH COURT ACT (CHAPTER 13) HIGH COURT (AMENDMENT) RULES 1998 IN exercise of the powers conferred upon me by Section 25 of the High Court Act, I hereby make the following Rules: Citation 1.

More information

BERMUDA LEGAL AID (GENERAL) REGULATIONS 1980 BR 70 / 1980

BERMUDA LEGAL AID (GENERAL) REGULATIONS 1980 BR 70 / 1980 QUO FA T A F U E R N T BERMUDA LEGAL AID (GENERAL) REGULATIONS 1980 BR 70 / 1980 [made by the Minister of Health and Social Services after consultation with the Chief Justice under the Legal Aid Act 1980

More information

CASE NO: 2138/2012 DATE HEARD: 08/08/2013 DATE DELIVERED: 23/08/2013

CASE NO: 2138/2012 DATE HEARD: 08/08/2013 DATE DELIVERED: 23/08/2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (EASTERN CAPE, GRAHAMSTOWN) CASE NO: 2138/2012 DATE HEARD: 08/08/2013 DATE DELIVERED: 23/08/2013 In the matter between REPORTABLE P S H APPLICANT and P H THE ADDITIONAL

More information

Report of the Adjudicator. Complaint number # Cited WASPA members Clickatell (Pty)Ltd (0004) All. members. Source of the complaint

Report of the Adjudicator. Complaint number # Cited WASPA members Clickatell (Pty)Ltd (0004) All. members. Source of the complaint Report of the Adjudicator Complaint number #34146 Cited WASPA members Clickatell (Pty)Ltd (0004) Notifiable members WASPA All Source of the complaint Public Complaint description short Premium Rated SMS

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (NORTH GAUTENG, PRETORIA)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (NORTH GAUTENG, PRETORIA) SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (NORTH GAUTENG,

More information

BEFORE THE NEW ZEALAND LAWYERS AND CONVEYANCERS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL [2014] NZLCDT 33 LCDT 025/13

BEFORE THE NEW ZEALAND LAWYERS AND CONVEYANCERS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL [2014] NZLCDT 33 LCDT 025/13 BEFORE THE NEW ZEALAND LAWYERS AND CONVEYANCERS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL [2014] NZLCDT 33 LCDT 025/13 BETWEEN OTAGO STANDARDS COMMITTEE OF THE ZEALAND LAW SOCIETY Applicant AND AOW Respondent CHAIR Judge

More information

In this application made under Rule 11 (2) (b) of the Court of. Appeal Rules, 2009, the applicant, Indian Ocean Hotels Ltd. t/a

In this application made under Rule 11 (2) (b) of the Court of. Appeal Rules, 2009, the applicant, Indian Ocean Hotels Ltd. t/a IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA AT DAR ES SALAAM (CORAM: RUTAKANGWA, J.A., MBAROUK, J.A., And MASSATI, J.A.) CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 82 A OF 2010 INDIAN OCEAN HOTELS LTD. t/a GOLDEN TULIP DAR ES SALAAM

More information

REPORTABLE IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT PORT ELIZABETH CASE NO. P 830/00. In the matter between: PHILIP FOURIE Applicant.

REPORTABLE IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT PORT ELIZABETH CASE NO. P 830/00. In the matter between: PHILIP FOURIE Applicant. REPORTABLE IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT PORT ELIZABETH In the matter between: CASE NO. P 830/00 PHILIP FOURIE Applicant and AMATOLA WATER BOARD Respondent J U D G M E N T BASSON, J: [1]

More information

NKUNZI SCAFFOLDING AND EQUIPMENT HIRE (CAPE TOWN) (PTY) LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) - "The Company" MASTER'S REFERENCE NUMBER : C577/2011

NKUNZI SCAFFOLDING AND EQUIPMENT HIRE (CAPE TOWN) (PTY) LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) - The Company MASTER'S REFERENCE NUMBER : C577/2011 NKUNZI SCAFFOLDING AND EQUIPMENT HIRE (CAPE TOWN) (PTY) LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) - "The Company" MASTER'S REFERENCE NUMBER : C577/2011 LIQUIDATORS REPORT TO BE SUBMITTED AT A SECOND MEETING OF CREDITORS

More information

COURT OF APPEAL RULES, 1997 (C.I 19)

COURT OF APPEAL RULES, 1997 (C.I 19) COURT OF APPEAL RULES, 1997 (C.I 19) IN exercise of the powers conferred on the Rules of Court Committee by Article 157(2) of the Constitution these Rules are made this 24th day of July, 1997. PART I-GENERAL

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV [2016] NZHC Plaintiff. AUCKLAND COUNCIL Defendant

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV [2016] NZHC Plaintiff. AUCKLAND COUNCIL Defendant IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV-2015-404-002795 [2016] NZHC 1199 BETWEEN AND ALWYNE JONES Plaintiff AUCKLAND COUNCIL Defendant Hearing: 29 February 2016 Appearances: R Pidgeon for

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Eyears v Zufic [2016] QCA 40 PARTIES: MARINA EYEARS (applicant) v PETER ZUFIC as trustee for the PETER AND TANYA ZUFIC FAMILY TRUST trading as CLIENTCARE SOLICITORS

More information

NORTH WEST HIGH COURT, MAFIKENG

NORTH WEST HIGH COURT, MAFIKENG NORTH WEST HIGH COURT, MAFIKENG CASE NO: M370/14 In the matter between: IZANDRA TRADING 9 (PTY) LTD APPLICANT And THE MEMBER OF THE EXECUTIVE COUNCIL FOR HEALTH, NORTH WEST PROVINCE THE HEAD OF DEPARTMENT:

More information

CIVIL APPEAL NO OF 2018 (Arising out of SLP(C) No of 2016) MOHD. SAHID AND OTHERS.Appellants VERSUS J U D G M E N T

CIVIL APPEAL NO OF 2018 (Arising out of SLP(C) No of 2016) MOHD. SAHID AND OTHERS.Appellants VERSUS J U D G M E N T REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10379 OF 2018 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 8586 of 2016) MOHD. SAHID AND OTHERS.Appellants VERSUS RAZIYA KHANAM (D)

More information

IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT BARBERTON MINES (PTY) LTD

IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT BARBERTON MINES (PTY) LTD IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT Not Reportable Case no: J1780/14 In the matter between: BARBERTON MINES (PTY) LTD Applicant and ASSOCIATION OF MINEWORKERS AND CONSTRUCTION UNION

More information

MERAKI PRINT (PTY) LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) MASTER S REFERENCE NUMBER: C655/2017

MERAKI PRINT (PTY) LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) MASTER S REFERENCE NUMBER: C655/2017 MERAKI PRINT (PTY) LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) MASTER S REFERENCE NUMBER: C655/2017 REPORT SUBMITTED AT THE STATUTORY SECOND MEETING OF CREDITORS, MEMBERS AND CONTRIBUTORIES, IN TERMS OF SECTION 402 OF THE COMPANIES

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE A.D TRADE WINDS LIMITED

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE A.D TRADE WINDS LIMITED IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE A.D. 2016 CLAIM NO. 166 of 2016 TRADE WINDS LIMITED CLAIMANT AND INTERESORTS INVESTMENT NV DEFENDANTS BECTIVE OVERSEAS PROJECTS LIMITED REGISTRAR, LAND TITLES UNIT INTERESTED

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA NORTH WEST HIGH COURT, MAFIKENG ANDREW LESIBA SHABALALA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA NORTH WEST HIGH COURT, MAFIKENG ANDREW LESIBA SHABALALA Reportable: Circulate to Judges: Circulate to Magistrates: Circulate to Regional Magistrates: YES / NO YES / NO YES / NO YES / NO IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA NORTH WEST HIGH COURT, MAFIKENG In the

More information

JUDGMENT- LEAVE TO EXECUTE

JUDGMENT- LEAVE TO EXECUTE SOUTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT, JOHANNESBURG CASE NO: 2010/22522 DATE:19/09/2011 REPORTABLE In the matter between: PELLOW N.O. ALLAN DAVID 1 st Applicant KOKA N.O. JERRY SEKETE 2 nd Applicant INVESTEC BANK LTD

More information

2008 No. 171-M DEMERARA IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE CIVIL JURISDICTION

2008 No. 171-M DEMERARA IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE CIVIL JURISDICTION 2008 No. 171-M DEMERARA IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE CIVIL JURISDICTION In the matter of an application by ORLANDO WONG for a Writ or Order of Mandamus Ms. Jamela A. Ali for the

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA DURBAN AND COAST LOCAL DIVISION REPORTABLE 11974/2006. KRISHENLALL HIRALAL APPLICANT versus

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA DURBAN AND COAST LOCAL DIVISION REPORTABLE 11974/2006. KRISHENLALL HIRALAL APPLICANT versus IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA DURBAN AND COAST LOCAL DIVISION REPORTABLE 11974/2006 KRISHENLALL HIRALAL APPLICANT versus LUGASEN NAICKER FIRST RESPONDENT SHANIKA NAICKER SECOND RESPONDENT RESERVED

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 3 rd DAY OF JULY, 2014 BEFORE THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.N.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 3 rd DAY OF JULY, 2014 BEFORE THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.N. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 3 rd DAY OF JULY, 2014 BEFORE THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.N. PHANEENDRA BETWEEN WRIT PETITION NO.85369/2013 (GM-RES) ASHOK KADAPPA JADAGOUD

More information

Buffalo City Metropolitan Municipality JUDGMENT

Buffalo City Metropolitan Municipality JUDGMENT 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA EAST LONDON CIRCUIT LOCAL DIVISION Case nos: EL270/17; ECD970/17 Date heard: 22/6/17 Date delivered: 28/6/17 Not reportable In the matter between: David Barker Applicant

More information

THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG NATIONAL UNION OF MINEWORKERS

THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG NATIONAL UNION OF MINEWORKERS THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG Not reportable Case no: J 1607/17 NATIONAL UNION OF MINEWORKERS Applicant and PETRA DIAMONDS t/a CULLINAN DIAMOND MINE (PTY) LTD Respondent Heard: 2 August

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA EASTERN CAPE DIVISION, PORT ELIZABETH. CASE NO: 4305 / 2017 Date heard: 26 June 2018 Date delivered: 31 July 2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA EASTERN CAPE DIVISION, PORT ELIZABETH. CASE NO: 4305 / 2017 Date heard: 26 June 2018 Date delivered: 31 July 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA EASTERN CAPE DIVISION, PORT ELIZABETH CASE NO: 4305 / 2017 Date heard: 26 June 2018 Date delivered: 31 July 2018 In the matter between JUNE KORKIE JUNE KORKIE N.O. JACK

More information

MAFIRAMBUDZI FAMILY TRUST versus LIBERTY MADZINGIRA and PANNAH NHIWATIWA and THE REGISTRAR OF DEEDS N.O and THE SHERIFF

MAFIRAMBUDZI FAMILY TRUST versus LIBERTY MADZINGIRA and PANNAH NHIWATIWA and THE REGISTRAR OF DEEDS N.O and THE SHERIFF 1 MAFIRAMBUDZI FAMILY TRUST versus LIBERTY MADZINGIRA and PANNAH NHIWATIWA and THE REGISTRAR OF DEEDS N.O and THE SHERIFF HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE TAKUVA J HARARE, 28 May 2014 Opposed application Ms B Machanzi,

More information

HENQUE 2890 CC T/A BRAZIER & ASSOCIATES (IN LIQUIDATION) MASTER S REFERENCE NUMBER: C3/2018

HENQUE 2890 CC T/A BRAZIER & ASSOCIATES (IN LIQUIDATION) MASTER S REFERENCE NUMBER: C3/2018 HENQUE 2890 CC T/A BRAZIER & ASSOCIATES (IN LIQUIDATION) MASTER S REFERENCE NUMBER: C3/2018 REPORT SUBMITTED AT THE STATUTORY SECOND MEETING OF CREDITORS AND MEMBERS, IN TERMS OF SECTION 79 OF THE CLOSE

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA. FIRSTRAND BANK LIMITED Plaintiff. ANDRé ALROY FILLIS First Defendant. MARILYN ELSA FILLIS Second Defendant JUDGMENT

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA. FIRSTRAND BANK LIMITED Plaintiff. ANDRé ALROY FILLIS First Defendant. MARILYN ELSA FILLIS Second Defendant JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA NOT REPORTABLE EASTERN CAPE, PORT ELIZABETH Case No.: 1796/10 Date Heard: 3 August 2010 Date Delivered:17 August 2010 In the matter between: FIRSTRAND BANK LIMITED Plaintiff

More information

JUDGMENT. [1] The applicants herein had earlier approached this Court for an order, inter

JUDGMENT. [1] The applicants herein had earlier approached this Court for an order, inter 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA EASTERN CAPE LOCAL DIVISION, PORT ELIZABETH NOT REPORTABLE In the matter between: ANTHONY LAURISTON BIGGS RIDGE FARM CC Case no: 3323/2013 Date heard: 6.3.2014 Date

More information

IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT

IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT Not reportable Case no. JR 2422/08 In the matter between: GEORGE TOBA Applicant and MOLOPO LOCAL MUNICIPALITY First Respondent SOUTH AFRICAN LOCAL

More information

SUCCESS LAW. Levy Recovery Presentation by Liat Walker, Managing Director. 10 September 2011

SUCCESS LAW. Levy Recovery Presentation by Liat Walker, Managing Director. 10 September 2011 SUCCESS LAW Levy Recovery Presentation by Liat Walker, Managing Director 10 September 2011 GOVERNING LEGISLATION Levy recovery action must be undertaken in accordance with the various module Regulations

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN THE MATTER OF THE JUDICIAL REVIEW ACT 2000 AND

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN THE MATTER OF THE JUDICIAL REVIEW ACT 2000 AND TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO H.C.A. NO. 1688 OF 2005 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN THE MATTER OF THE JUDICIAL REVIEW ACT 2000 AND IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY THE NATIONAL LOTTERIES CONTROL BOARD FOR LEAVE

More information

LEGAL COSTS REGIME - ISSUES FOR BARRISTERS

LEGAL COSTS REGIME - ISSUES FOR BARRISTERS LEGAL COSTS REGIME - ISSUES FOR BARRISTERS Legal Costs Provisions of the Legal Services Regulation Bill, 2011 David Barniville SC Chairman of the Bar Council of Ireland CPD Seminar 29 April 2015 AREAS

More information