Tuesday, 24 March 2020

MOHADI LOSES CASE


 VICE President Kembo Mohadi has lost a bid to have his ex-wife Tambudzani ordered to pay over $400 000 to him for failing to take custody of cattle which were awarded to her when the two officially parted ways in March last year.

“The defendant has failed, neglected or refused to remove her herd of cattle that she was awarded in terms of the consent order from Lot 1 of Lot 10 Jompembe Farm, Beitbridge despite several demands to do so from the plaintiff,” Mohadi had argued.

However, Tambudzani had excepted to the application, which the High Court upheld.
“Whereupon, after reading documents filed of record and hearing counsel, it is ordered that: the exception is upheld and the plaintiff’s claim be and is hereby dismissed with costs,” High Court judge Jacob Manzunzu ruled.

 In the application, Mohadi claimed that he was incurring several costs on his own relating to the welfare of Tambudzani’s share of cattle. He said they should equally share the amount with his ex-wife.

“The defendant’s share of expenses at the date of the summons shall be $438 300, which shall increase on a monthly basis to the date of this order and eventually to the date of settlement of the expenses calculated at the rate of 30 percent of the amount outstanding at the time of filing these summons,” he said.

 Mohadi had demanded an order directing the sheriff of the High Court of Zimbabwe to be authorised to attach and sell the cattle in order to settle the expenses he incurred.

“The plaintiff shall be allowed to attach some of the defendant’s assets if the total herd of cattle for the defendant fails to satisfy the plaintiff’s claim,” he said.

However, Tambudzani had excepted to the claim, arguing that Mohadi’s request was bad at law, as it failed to disclose a cause of action.

“The averments made do not sustain any identifiable and recognisable cause of action. The plaintiff’s claim against the defendant, does not comply with the provisions of Order 3 Rule 11 (c) of this court’s rules.

“The declaration does not contain true concise statement of the nature, extent and grounds of the cause of action and of relief or remedies sought in the action.

“The plaintiff’s declaration is vague and embarrassing in that: it is not sufficiently clear whether the plaintiff’s claim is based in contract or in delict.

“The plaintiff has only jumped to provide figures which he purports should be remitted to him by the defendant but has not averred any of the elements required to succeed in a claim either in delict or contract,” she argued. Daily News

0 comments:

Post a Comment