Dynamit Security Organisation (Pvt) Ltd v Grimm & Ors (HH 173 of 2003) [2003] ZWHHC 173 (7 October 2003)

Dynamit Security Organisation (Pvt) Ltd v Grimm & Ors (HH 173 of 2003) [2003] ZWHHC 173 (7 October 2003)

The defendant was justified in cancelling the contract due to breaches by the plaintiff that went to the root of the contract. The damages claimed by the plaintiff were too remote and not within the contemplation of the parties at the time of contracting, and thus not recoverable.

Citation
[2003] ZWHHC 173
Parties
Plaintiff: Dynamit Security Organisation (Pvt) Limited; Defendant: Mr H E Grimm; Defendant: Heywood Haulage & Investments; Defendant: International Truck Sales (Pvt) Ltd
Court
Harare High Court
Jurisdiction
Zimbabwe
Judgment Date
7 October 2003
Case Number
HH 173 of 2003
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Judgment
Outcome
claim dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Breach of Contract, Damages, Restraint of Trade, Termination of Contract
Source Language
English
Contract Law Breach of Contract Damages Restraint of Trade Termination of Contract

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dynamit Security Organisation (Pvt) Limited

Plaintiff

Mr H E Grimm

Defendant

Heywood Haulage & Investments

Defendant

International Truck Sales (Pvt) Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant wrongfully cancelled the contract without notice
  2. 2 Whether the defendant is liable for damages arising from employing plaintiff's guards in breach of contract
  3. 3 Whether the damages claimed are too remote to be recoverable

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant was justified in cancelling the contract due to breaches by the plaintiff that went to the root of the contract. The damages claimed by the plaintiff were too remote and not within the contemplation of the parties at the time of contracting, and thus not recoverable.

Court Disposition

claim dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Plaintiff's claim is dismissed with costs.