Archive logo
© Zimbabwe Law Reports — 2026.
Home

Navigation

Browse

Search

Find a case in seconds

Close search modal

Search by party name, citation, or a phrase from the judgment and move straight to the right volume.

Access noteResults only include content available on your current tier. If you do not have full case access, results from restricted case content will not appear.

Try a starting point
Member access

Welcome back

Sign in to continue browsing Zimbabwe Law Reports.

Don't have an account?

Menu

Close panel
Archive logo
← Home

1999 — Volume 2

Cases

Select a case to view its details and legal content.

S V MUNGATI & ANOR
1999 (2) ZLR 1 (H)
RUSSELL NOACH (PVT) LTD V MIDSEC NORTH (PVT) LTD
1999 (2) ZLR 8 (H)
GUMUNYU V NYONI
1999 (2) ZLR 15 (H)
KAMA CONSTRUCTION (PVT) LTD V COLD COMFORT FARM CO-OPERATIVE & ORS
1999 (2) ZLR 19 (S)
BLANCHARD & ORS V MINISTER OF JUSTICE
1999 (2) ZLR 24 (S)
LEES IMPORT AND EXPORT (PVT) LTD V ZIMBANK
1999 (2) ZLR 36 (S)
CHIBANDA V MUSUMHIRI & ANOR
1999 (2) ZLR 50 (H)
AFRICAN GOLD (ZIMBABWE) (PVT) LTD V MODEST (PVT) LTD
1999 (2) ZLR 61 (S)
SCOTFIN LTD V HEWITT & ORS
1999 (2) ZLR 65 (H)
S V MUTERO & ORS
1999 (2) ZLR 73 (H)
BHP MINERALS ZIMBABWE (PVT) LTD V TAKAWIRA
1999 (2) ZLR 77 (S)
MANYONDA & ORS V POSTS & TELECOMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION
1999 (2) ZLR 81 (H)
SILVER TRUCKS (PVT) LTD & ANOR V DIRECTOR OF CUSTOMS & EXCISE (2)
1999 (2) ZLR 88 (H)
MASANGA & ANOR V ZITA & ANOR
1999 (2) ZLR 94 (H)
TEMISA HLDGS (PVT) LTD & ORS V REGISTRAR, PENSION & PROVIDENT FUNDS & ORS
1999 (2) ZLR 101 (H)
MHUTE V CHIFAMBA
1999 (2) ZLR 115 (S)
JENGWA V JENGWA
1999 (2) ZLR 121 (H)
MUNAMATO MINING SYNDICATE V MINING
1999 (2) ZLR 136 (H)
MUTARE CITY COUNCIL V MUDZIME & ORS
1999 (2) ZLR 140 (S)
MPUMELA V BERGER PAINTS (PVT) LTD
1999 (2) ZLR 146 (S)
TEERA V ZUMBIKA
1999 (2) ZLR 152 (H)
COMMAF HOLDINGS (PVT) LTD V GENERAL CHEMICALS (PVT) LTD & ANOR
1999 (2) ZLR 160 (H)
S V DOKO
1999 (2) ZLR 164 (H)
S V BLANCHARD & ORS
1999 (2) ZLR 168 (H)
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO OF ZIMBABWE V DLAMINI
1999 (2) ZLR 196 (H)
PRESTON V CHARUMA BLASTING & EARTHMOVING SERVICES (PVT) LTD & ANOR
1999 (2) ZLR 201 (S)
KUNEDZIMWE V MUSARIRI
1999 (2) ZLR 205 (H)
S V MADZOMBA
1999 (2) ZLR 214 (H)
S V MUDZINGWA
1999 (2) ZLR 225 (H)
LAW SOCIETY OF ZIMBABWE & ORS V MINISTER OF FINANCE (ATTORNEY-GENERAL INTERVENING)
1999 (2) ZLR 231 (S)
RADAR HOLDINGS LTD & ANOR V EAGLE INSURANCE CO LTD
1999 (2) ZLR 246 (S)
S V DHONGI
1999 (2) ZLR 252 (H)
CRUSADER REAL ESTATE CONSULTANCY (PVT) LTD V CABS
1999 (2) ZLR 257 (S)
GWAFA V SMALL ENTERPRISES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION & ANOR
1999 (2) ZLR 261 (S)
MOYO V MOYO
1999 (2) ZLR 265 (H)
FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF NAMIBIA V KAURE
1999 (2) ZLR 269 (H)
SIVAKO V ATTORNEY-GENERAL
1999 (2) ZLR 271 (S)
HINGESTON V LIGHTFOOT
1999 (2) ZLR 281 (H)
CABS V CHIRIMUTA
1999 (2) ZLR 288 (H)
IN RE CHINAMASA
1999 (2) ZLR 291 (H)
S V DZAWO
1999 (2) ZLR 303 (H)
S V TARR
1999 (2) ZLR 308 (H)
S V SABAWU & ANOR
1999 (2) ZLR 314 (H)
LIBERTY PARTY OF ZIMBABWE V REGISTRAR-GENERAL
1999 (2) ZLR 321 (H)
CHISIPITE SCHOOL TRUST (PVT) LTD V CLARKE
1999 (2) ZLR 324 (S)
CHIKONYE & ANOR V PETERHOUSE
1999 (2) ZLR 329 (S)
CHISVO & ORS V AUREX (PVT) LTD & ANOR
1999 (2) ZLR 334 (H)
NDLOVU V MURANDU
1999 (2) ZLR 341 (H)
NYANDORO V SITHOLE & ORS
1999 (2) ZLR 353 (H)
H V H
1999 (2) ZLR 358 (H)
MANDIZVIDZA V CHADUKA NO & ORS
1999 (2) ZLR 375 (H)
S V SAWYER
1999 (2) ZLR 390 (H)
SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE V PARKER
1999 (2) ZLR 400 (H)
CROC-OSTRICH BREEDERS OF ZIMBABWE (PVT) LTD V BEST OF ZIMBABWE (PVT) LTD
1999 (2) ZLR 410 (H)
TRINITY ENGINEERING (PVT) LTD V COMMERCIAL BANK OF ZIMBABWE LTD
1999 (2) ZLR 417 (H)
DUBE & ANOR V LAW SOCIETY OF ZIMBABWE
1999 (2) ZLR 424 (S)
MWENYE V LONRHO ZIMBABWE LTD
1999 (2) ZLR 429 (S)
MUTAISI V MUZONDO
1999 (2) ZLR 435 (H)
BARCLAYS BANK OF ZIMBABWE LTD V ARROW ZIP FASTENERS (PVT) LTD
1999 (2) ZLR 441 (H)
ZIMBABWE BROADCASTING CORPORATION V FLAME LILY BROADCASTING (PVT) LTD
1999 (2) ZLR 448 (H)
ZIMBABWE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY AUTHORITY V MAPOSA
1999 (2) ZLR 452 (S)
© Zimbabwe Law Reports — 2026.
Home

Navigation

Browse

Search

Find a case in seconds

Close search modal

Search by party name, citation, or a phrase from the judgment and move straight to the right volume.

Access noteResults only include content available on your current tier. If you do not have full case access, results from restricted case content will not appear.

Try a starting point
Member access

Welcome back

Sign in to continue browsing Zimbabwe Law Reports.

Don't have an account?

Menu

Close panel

RUSSELL NOACH (PVT) LTD v MIDSEC NORTH (PVT) LTD 1999 (2) ZLR 8 (H)

Case details
Citation
1999 (2) ZLR 8 (H)
Case No
Judgment No. HB-57-99
Court
High Court, Bulawayo
Judge
Malaba J
Heard
18 June 1999
Judgment
18 June 1999
Counsel
A Sibanda, for the applicant. S Takundwa, for the respondent.
Case Type
Civil application
Annotations
No case annotations to date

Flynote

Practice and procedure ” pleading ” plea to summons ” time within which must be made ” notice of intention to bar given to defendant ” extension of time within which to file plea ” may not be secured by filing request for further particulars

Headnote

The respondent company instituted an action against the applicant company, claiming payment for services rendered. A summons was served on the defendant. Shortly before the expiry of the time within which it was required to plead, the applicant asked for further particulars. Some of the particulars asked for were irrelevant, but the relevant particulars were delivered timeously. The time within which the applicant was required by the Rules of the High Court to file its plea or make a request for further and better particulars expired and notice of intention to bar was given to the applicant. Instead of filing a plea within the four days allowed by the Rules, the applicant filed what it called a request for further and better particulars. The respondent imposed the bar and applied for default judgment, which was in due course granted. The applicant applied for rescission of judgment, arguing that the respondent had no right to bar it from filing a plea before having supplied the further and better particulars it had requested.

Held, that the respondent was entitled to ignore the request for further particulars. If the applicant had wanted further and better particulars, it had 12 days from the date when the particulars were delivered either to file a plea or request the further particulars. By failing to do so, it lost the right to dictate the next procedural step and so became liable to being barred. The power was then vested in the respondent to determine the next step. The applicant failed to do what was required of it by the respondent, which was to file its plea within four days. It had no right to file a request for further particulars. The request was invalid for being filed out of time, and improper, because it was not what it was required to do. The bar was thus properly imposed and default judgment properly obtained.

Sign in required

Continue beyond the preview

Sign in or create a free account — you get 2 full-case reads included.