Court Judgements
Browse Judgements by Year
The plaintiff instituted action proceedings against the defendant claiming the following:
‘(i) a declaration that defendant breached the bonding agreement;
(ii) payment in the sum of US$12 614-98 being money owed to the plaintiff due to a breach of the agreement;
(iii) interest on the amount of US$12 814-98, calculated at the prescribed rate of interest from 31 October 2015, being the date of resignation. More
: The applicant Zimbabwe Platinum Mines (Pvt) Ltd (Zimplats) is suing the Zimbabwe Revenue Authority, the first respondent (ZIMRA) which is the tax collecting agent of the Government of Zimbabwe (the Government) and the second respondent, the Commissioner-General of the first respondent (the Commissioner-General) who is conferred with the powers of supervising and managing the first respondent’s staff, activities, funds and property. The first respondent’s activities which are managed and supervised by the second respondent include the functions of collecting duties and paying refunds under the Customs and Excise Act [Chapter 23:02]. More
On 8 February 2017 the plaintiff issued summons against the defendant claiming the sum of $20 133.46 arising from the sale of books by the defendant on behalf of the plaintiff, the proceeds of which the defendant failed to remit. The plaintiff also claimed interest on that sum at the prescribed rate plus costs of suit.
The background facts as outlined by the plaintiff are these. Sometime in 2009 the parties entered into an agreement in terms of which the defendant would receive books from the plaintiff and sell them on its behalf for a commission of 30% of the... More
By order dated 7 November 2018 the Honourable Justice Foroma directed that these three matters be consolidated and be heard by this court or any other judge without delay. Matter HC 7239/18 is a court application for rescission of default judgment granted by PHIRI J in motion court in HC 6220/18 in favour of Mr Washington Mavunga and against Zimbabwe More
Applicant sought the setting aside of part of the arbitral award in terms of Article 34 of the Arbitration Act [Chapter 7:15]. More
This is an application for the setting aside of an arbitral award in terms of Article 34 of the Model Law (Schedule to the Arbitration Act [Chapter 7.15] which provides in Sub-Article 2 as follows:
“Any arbitral award may be set aside by the High Court only if-
(a) …..
(b) the High court finds, that –
(i) the subject-matter of the dispute is not capable of settlement by arbitration under the law of Zimbabwe, or
(ii) the award is in conflict with the public policy of Zimbabwe.” More
This is a delictual claim for damages arising from a collision between a bus belonging to the plaintiff and a tractor and trailer owned by the defendant. More
