Bishi v secretary for education
WebBishi 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 … WebPETITIONER: BIBI AISHA & ORS. Vs. RESPONDENT: BIHAR SUBAI SUNNI MAJLIS AVAQAF & ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 24/07/1968 BENCH: BACHAWAT, R.S. …
Bishi v secretary for education
Did you know?
WebAug 19, 2003 · bishy. short for bishounen, which literally means beautiful boy or pretty boy in japanese. usually describing a guy who has effiminate features as well as a slight … 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
WebSee Secretary for Transport & Another v Makwavarara 1991 (1) ZLR 18 (S). ... See Gula Ndebele v Bhunu NO 2010 (1) ZLR 78 (H), Bishi v Secretary for Education 1989 (2) ZLR 240 (H), Maheya v Independent Church of Africa SC 58/07, Muroiwa v Delta Operations Ltd & Another 2002 (2) ZLR 30 (S). WebSep 16, 2005 · When Culture Clashes with the Criminal Law Case note on S v Hamunakwadi 2015 (1) ZLR 392 (H); S v Musino HH-158-17 and S v Taurayi HH-298-90 By Geoff Feltoe; Aligning the Administrative Justice Act with the Constitution; Books. Final Papers of the 2016 National Symposium on the Promise of the Declaration of Rights …
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.
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 ...
WebMar 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; ... stainless steel mayoreoWebJul 29, 2005 · The 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 ); … stainless steel matcha whiskWebIn 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; stainless steel matching appliancesWebBishi v Secretary for Education, 1989 (2) ZLR 240 (HC) at 243 B-C adds a further three requirements which an applicant for condonation must satisfy in addition to the requirements which the Supreme Court enunciated in Kombayi v Berkout (supra). These are: iv) the importance of the case; v) the convenience of the court – and stainless steel matthews ncWebThese are the reasons for the order. On 17 January 2013 the respondent instituted proceedings by way of summons against the two applicants claiming payment of a sum … stainless steel matte backgroundWebBishi 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 … stainless steel max height fflWebJan 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. stainless steel mayo tray