Bishi v secretary for education
WebJan 30, 2014 · See Kombayi v Berkhou SC 30/1988 and Bishi v Secretary for Education 1989 (2) ZLR 240 (H) at page 243 B. I am satisfied upon perusal of the record that the period of delay is not inordinate, the explanation tendered for the delay is reasonable. In my view Appellant also has good prospects of success on appeal.
Bishi v secretary for education
Did you know?
WebBishi v Secretary for Education 1989(2) ZLR 240 (H) at 242D-243C. The applicant has been in a position of no right in respect to her occupation of the “church house” for the past seven years and the same period of time marks the degree of non-compliance with r 34(1) of the Rules of the Supreme Court. She has blamed her erstwhile legal ... WebOct 10, 2007 · The reviewing judges should be careful not to erode such discretion – Ramushu & Ors v S SC-25-93; S v Matanhire HH-18-02; Mavhundwa v S HH-91-02; ... SA 135 (A) at 141C-E; S v McNab 1986 (2) ZLR 280 SC; Bishi v Secretary for Education 1989 (2) ZLR 240 (HC) at 243G-244F and Khumalo v Mafurirano HB-11-04. This is a …
WebJun 3, 2014 · See also Beitbridge Rural District Council v Russell Construction Co (Pvt) Ltd 1998 (2) ZLR 190(S) at 193B-G; Bishi v Secretary for Education supra at 244A-D. This, to me, is an appropriate case for imputing upon the applicants the consequences of the non-compliance with the Rules by their legal practitioners. WebIn Bishi v Secretary for Education 1989 (2) ZLR 240 (HC) it was held per CHIDYAUSIKU J (as he then was) that the following are the factors to be taken into account in considering whether good cause has been shown: “(a) the degree of non-compliance with the rules;
WebFor the factors that the court will take into account in deciding whether to allow a late application for review, see Bishi v Secretary for Education 1989 (2) ZLR 240 (H). Within … WebThe applicant had not filed the opposing papers. The papers opposing the application for review were eventually filed on 7 August 2024. By then the applicant was thirteen days out of time. On 7 November 2024 applicant then filed an application for condonation for late filing of the opposing papers.
Webthe case of Bishi v Secretary for Education 1989 (2) ZLR 240 and Ndebele v Ncube 1992 (1) ZLR 288 (S). The court is not able to find fault on defendant. There is nothing placed before the court to show he was timeously requested to provide a synopsis of evidence, let
WebThe standard factors to be considered in deciding whether or not to condone the late filing of an application for review are: the degree of non-compliance, the explanation for it; and the applicants prospects of success- Bishi v Secretary for Education 1989 (2) ZLR 240 (H); Mushaishi v Lifeline Syndicate and Another 1990 (1) ZLR 284 (H); Vrystaat … can felony assault charges be droppedWebBishi v Secretary for Education 1989 (2) ZLR 240 (H) Blacker v University of Cape Town & Anor 1993 (4) SA 402 (C) Blue Ribbon Foods Ltd v Dube NO & Anor1993 (2) ZLR 146 … can felons work in the medical fieldWebIf authority is required for this self evident concept, it is to be found in Bishi v Secretary for Education 1989(2) ZLR 240 (H) at 242D; and Mushaishi v Lifeline Syndicate & Anor 1990(1) ZLR 284 (H) at 288E-F. The court is entitled to refuse to … fit and move gradignanWebBishi v Secretary for Education 1989 (2) ZLR 240 (HC) The applicant, a teacher, had been found guilty by a disciplinary committee of misconduct in terms of the African … fit and moveWebBishi v Secretary for Education 1989 (20 ZLR (H) at 242D-243C”. In casu assuming that the judgment was handed down on the 13th March 2015 which of course does not appear in the record, the twenty-one days period fell on the … fit and motionWebMar 14, 2016 · See also Bishi v Secretary for Education 1989 (2) ZLR 240 (HC); United Plant Hire (Pvt) Ltd v Hills & Ors 1976 (1) SA 717 (A); Chimunda v Zimuto & Anor SC 361/05; Viking Woodwork (Pvt) Ltd vs Blue Bells Enterprises (Pvt) Ltd 1998 (2) ZLR 249 (SC) These requirements have been summarised as; the degree of non-compliance; ... can felony drive uberWebBishi. v . Secretary for Education (supra). In my judgment, I find that the following factors compensate for the delay in filing this application and the poor explanation therefor: the slight delay in filing the opposing papers. the explanation for that slight delay. fit and more paris 16