Judgment No. HB 113/2002
Case No. HC 1281/2002
ALISON MOYO
versus
A P EVERITT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE
CHEDA J
BULAWAYO 13 & 10 OCTOBER 2002
Plaintiff in person
D M Campbellfor the defendant
Exception
CHEDA J: Plaintiff a self-actor issued summons out of this court against
defendant on 17 May 2002 wherein he claimed:
-
$150 000,00 for the sell of 14 blocks of Kent Killarney Mine
-
$15 413,39 inclusive of deputy Sheriff’s fees and photocopying charges
-
$46 513,39 transport costs
-
30% per annum being interest on his costs
-
that defendant should be imprisoned with no fine
Defendant entered an appearance to defend on 28 May 2002 and asked for
further particulars to the summons. Plaintiff then responded by filing a document he
referred to as “a declaration” on 5 June 2002. Defendant filed a notice of exception to
plaintiff’s summons on 11 June 20002 on the grounds that the summons and the
document he refers to as a “declaration” were vague and embarrassing at law and did
not disclose a cause of action. Amongst defendant’s complaints was that while in his
summons he claimed in his personal capacity under the declaration he was now acting
for and on behalf of Killarney Mine or Lords Mines Filabusi.
This anomaly was highlighted to him by defendant but he was not to hear of it
as he continued to file further documents which did not help his claim if he has any at
all.
113/02
-2-
Defendant through his legal practitioner Mr Campbell opposed his application and
asked for the dismissal of the claim. Applicant was given an opportunity to present
his case which he did but he stuck to his claims which I must say leaves a lot to be
desired as it is presented in a confused and confusing manner.
While I understand that applicant is a self actor, but he struck me as a literate
man and in his own admission capable of seeking the services of a legal practitioner.
He chose not to do so possibly to boost his own ego but much to his prejudice. The
courts are as open as the Ritz Hotel as is often stated, but there are rules which must
be strictly followed by all litigants. Applicant might have a claim against defendant
but such claim must be clear from his papers and he must respond to a request for
further particulars which are necessary in order to enable defendant to answer his
claim. Defendant can not do so when he is not sure what the claim is for and worse
still when plaintiff depending on his convenience chooses to sue in his personal
capacity or for and on behalf of a company.
On perusal of the documents filed of record I agree with Mr Campbell that his
summons do not disclose a cause of action and is accordingly dismissed with costs.
Calderwood, Bryce Hendrie & Partnersdefendant’s legal practitioners
