|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| June 2019 |
|
|
Rescission application dismissed for want of prosecution due to inordinate delay, inadequate explanation, defective affidavit and poor prospects.
Civil procedure — want of prosecution — High Court Rule 236(3)(b) — rescission of judgment — length of delay and explanation — defective affidavit as nullity — litigant's falsehoods adverse to credibility — prospects of success and prejudice assessed under Guardforce factors
|
28 June 2019 |
|
Applicant lacked locus standi to challenge parliamentary vehicle loan scheme; court dismissed claim and awarded punitive costs against applicant and lawyers.
Locus standi — standing to seek interdict against parliamentary Vehicle Loan Scheme — alleged infringement of freedom of association and right to vote — indirect interest insufficient — vexatious litigation — punitive costs de bonis propriis
|
28 June 2019 |
|
Urgent relief refused: urgency was self-created by applicant’s belated occupation, matter struck off roll and costs ordered.
Civil procedure – urgent chamber application – urgency must be shown by expeditious action; self-created urgency defeats urgency – ejectment and stay of execution – non-compliance with r 24(1) (Form No. 29) raised but not decided where matter not urgent.
|
28 June 2019 |
|
Whether the respondent must reimburse the applicant for VAT the applicant paid to the revenue authority after the respondent’s written acknowledgement.
Tax law — VAT liability and reimbursement — Written acknowledgment of debt — Value Added Tax Act (registered operator) held inapplicable — Relaxation of par delictum rule to prevent unjust enrichment — Reliance on revenue authority confirmation of payment
|
27 June 2019 |
|
Applicants lacked standing to sue in personal capacity over trust affairs, and material disputes of fact required dismissal of the application.
Trust law – locus standi of trustees – capacity to sue: trustees must sue in representative/official capacity where relief benefits the trust; Civil procedure – interlocutory points in limine – material disputes of fact on affidavits preclude determination on papers and justify dismissal
|
27 June 2019 |
|
Court enforces an acknowledgement of debt, finding no duress and retaining jurisdiction despite a forum-selection clause.
Jurisdiction – forum-selection clause in prior mandate; Acknowledgment of debt – validity and novation; Duress/undue influence – evidentiary requirements; Compromise agreements – effect of novation and sanctity of contract.
|
26 June 2019 |
|
Whether the plaintiff proved it introduced the buyer and was entitled to commission where unregistered intermediaries brokered the sale.
Estate agents — introduction of purchaser — entitlement to commission — burden of proof on agent — doctrine of fictional fulfilment — adverse inference for failure to call third‑party intermediary — unregistered intermediaries' conduct.
|
26 June 2019 |
|
The applicant’s ministerial offer letter establishes a right to interdict; respondent’s political letters do not confer lawful occupation.
Property/interdict — Requirements for final interdict: clear right, irreparable harm, no alternative remedy — Offer letter from Ministry constitutes lawful authority — Political party/association letters do not — Confirmation of provisional spoliation-related order
|
25 June 2019 |
|
Attaching notices to court papers does not constitute filing an appeal; reinstatement claim dismissed with punitive costs.
Administrative law; interpretation of court orders; filing of notices of appeal; suspension of administrative decisions; reinstatement; punitive costs
|
20 June 2019 |
|
Court upheld cancellation of mathematics result for unauthorised access but ordered release of other subject results as unlawful to cancel without hearing.
Administrative law – Cancellation and annulment of examination results – ZIMSEC Act s 34(2),(3) – Constitutional right to fair administrative conduct (s 68) – Administrative Justice Act – unauthorised access to examination material – proportionality and audi alteram partem – substitution of administrative decision where remittal futile
|
19 June 2019 |
|
Urgent stay of execution dismissed as urgency was self-created; applicant ordered to pay attorney-and-client costs.
Civil procedure — Urgent chamber application — Stay of execution of registered default Labour Court judgment pending rescission — Applicant’s alleged non-receipt of papers — Self-created urgency — Failure to oppose registration — Costs on attorney-and-client scale
|
19 June 2019 |
|
An exclusive testamentary usufruct entitles the usufructuary to an interdict against beneficiaries entering trust property without consent.
Property law — Usufruct: limited real right; exclusive occupation and enjoyment where will and trust expressly grant usufructuary rights — Family trust holds bare dominium — Trustee/beneficiary has no unilateral right to enter, occupy or repair trust property — Interdict: clear right, injury apprehended, no alternative remedy — Domestic Violence Act not applicable.
|
19 June 2019 |
|
Court granted leave to execute pending appeal, finding the respondent’s appeal without prospects and public interest favoured execution.
Civil procedure — Leave to execute judgment pending appeal — Criteria: prospects of success, irreparable harm, balance of convenience — Declaratory and specific performance orders — Rules on filing heads of argument (r 238(2a)) directory — Public interest in national infrastructure projects — Abuse of procedural rules to delay justice
|
17 June 2019 |
|
Urgent interim relief that has the effect of final relief and lacks proof of imminent harm is incompetent and the application was dismissed.
Civil procedure — Urgent chamber application — Interim relief must not have the effect of final relief; urgency requires a reasonable apprehension of imminent harm; judicial manager’s locus standi — distinguish personal reputational claims from corporate interests
|
14 June 2019 |
|
Leave to file a supplementary affidavit under r235 refused for unexplained delay and prejudicial introduction of a new defence.
Civil procedure — Order 32 r235 — supplementary affidavits exceptional — necessity to justify delay — inadmissible introduction of pre-existing facts/new defence — prejudice and costs
|
14 June 2019 |
|
Where respondents address the merits in an urgent application, a final order may be granted; a High Court stay was unnecessary as the trial court had already stayed proceedings.
Civil procedure – urgent applications (r 244, r 246(2)) – where respondent addresses merits final order may be granted; Criminal procedure – stay of proceedings pending review – trial court may postpone/stay pending filing of review; Superior courts – general reluctance to interfere in uncompleted lower court proceedings except in exceptional cases; Duty to prosecute reviews – parties and trial magistrates must actively pursue reviews; Consequences of late opposing papers – potential bar under application rules.
|
10 June 2019 |