Summary

Civil application – Applicants alleging existence of oral agency agreement between the parties – Respondents denying existence of agency agreement but alleging another arrangement – The terms of the arrangement fitting the description of the oral agency agreement and the Respondents conducting themselves in terms of the alleged agency agreement – Consensus inferred from the conduct of the Respondents that there was agency agreement between the parties.

Summary

Application – Review of Minister’s decision declining renewal of a mining lease  under section 36 (5) of the Mines and Minerals Act No.4 of 2005 -Applicant not invoking  rule 50 (4) of High Court Rules 1980, but raising further grounds of review in its replying affidavit – Minister’s discretionary powers under section 36 (5) circumscribed – Section 44 negotiations intended for parties to agree terms and conditions of new mining  agreement – No need to enter into negotiations if the applicant does not meet the requirements for renewal under section 36 (5) – Application dismissed

SUMMARY:

Application for Summary Judgment – Defendant moving the Court to ignore particulars of claim attached to the summons in considering the application – The propriety of Applicant’s reliance on evidential documents attached to the summons considered – Application for summary judgment granted. 

SUMMARY

Application for rescission of an order dismissing a rescission application for want of prosecution – Application opposed – Urgency not established but 1st respondent acquiesced to the urgency – Despite lack of urgency court exercised discretion to deal with merits – Grounds for rescission under Rule 45(1)(a) not established – Counsel lacking authority to institute or oppose application (obiter dictum)– Application dismissed- Each party to bear its own costs.

SUMMARY

The applicant in the main asked the Court to order the respondents to forward her names to the Independent Electoral Commission as the candidate for the RFP political party in the 2022 national general elections following her success over the others who were interviewed at the final stage of the meritocracy selection of the best candidate.  The party declined to so forward her name due to its subsequent finding that she is a member of its rival TEB political party.  Having been re-summoned by the RFP to be interrogated on the allegations of her membership to the TAB, she gave conflicting explanations compromising her credibility.  It was not disputed that she knew about the meritocracy policy of the party since she participated in its processes and instituted this litigation to benefit from it.  The court found that the documentarily proven duality of her membership to the two parties rendered the mutuality of trust between the RFP and herself placed in jeopardy to justify its declination.  In the circumstances, her constitutional right to participate in the public affairs was found not to have been violated.  The application was consequently refused.     

SUMMARY

Civil Procedure – exception application in terms of Rule 29(2) – exception on the ground of vagueness- what constitutes?

SUMMARY

Contempt of court – Application not opposed - Party not properly cited – Notice of Motion not addressed to anyone - Elements of Contempt – facts relied upon not proving contempt– facts alleged supporting ad pecuniam solvendam – applicant failed to discharge burden – no contempt proven beyond reasonable doubt – no order as to costs. 

SUMMARY:

Contempt of court-locus standi for contempt of court-jurisdiction of the court in contempt proceedings. Complying with an unlawful court order.

Summary

Application for summary judgement - Rule 28(3)(b) requirements restated - defendant making bald assertions of their defense – failing to meet the requirements of the rule - application for summary judgement granted