Court name
Bulawayo High Court
Case number
HC 1281 of 2002

Moyo v Everitt (HC 1281 of 2002) [2002] ZWBHC 113 (09 October 2002);

Law report citations
Media neutral citation
[2002] ZWBHC 113

                                                                                            Judgment No. HB 113/2002

                                                                                    Case No. HC 1281/2002










BULAWAYO 13  & 10 OCTOBER 2002


Plaintiff in person

D M Campbellfor the defendant




            CHEDA J:     Plaintiff a self-actor issued summons out of this court against


defendant on 17 May 2002 wherein he claimed:

  1. $150 000,00 for the sell of 14 blocks of Kent Killarney Mine
  2. $15 413,39 inclusive of deputy Sheriff’s fees and photocopying charges
  3. $46 513,39 transport costs
  4. 30% per annum being interest on his costs
  5. 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







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