Vudzi v Zeidan (HC 7504 of 2011; HH 120 of 2017) [2017] ZWHHC 120 (3 February 2017)

Vudzi v Zeidan (HC 7504 of 2011; HH 120 of 2017) [2017] ZWHHC 120 (3 February 2017)

The plaintiff failed to establish any evidence upon which a reasonable court might find in his favour regarding the existence of an agreement for fees or the quantum claimed. The evidence was inconsistent, unsupported by documents, and the figures claimed were unproven.

Citation
[2017] ZWHHC 120
Parties
Plaintiff: Luckboy Vudzi; Defendant: Doctor S Zeidan
Court
Harare High Court
Jurisdiction
Zimbabwe
Judgment Date
3 February 2017
Case Number
HC 7504 of 2011 ; HH 120 of 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment on Application for Absolution From the Instance
Outcome
absolution from the instance granted
Legal Topics
Absolution From the Instance, Quantum of Proof, Services Contract, Counterclaim
Source Language
English
Contract Law Civil Procedure Absolution From the Instance Quantum of Proof Services Contract Counterclaim

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Luckboy Vudzi

Plaintiff

Doctor S Zeidan

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment on Application for Absolution From the Instance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff established a prima facie case for payment for services rendered
  2. 2 Whether the evidence supports the existence of an agreement for fees
  3. 3 Whether the quantum of the claim was proved

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff failed to establish any evidence upon which a reasonable court might find in his favour regarding the existence of an agreement for fees or the quantum claimed. The evidence was inconsistent, unsupported by documents, and the figures claimed were unproven.

Court Disposition

absolution from the instance granted

Orders

  • Application for absolution from the instance is granted.
  • Plaintiff shall pay the defendant’s costs in respect of the main claim.