Bishi v secretary for education
WebJul 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 ); …
Bishi v secretary for education
Did you know?
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. 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 …
WebBishi. 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. 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;
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. 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; ...
WebPETITIONER: BIBI AISHA & ORS. Vs. RESPONDENT: BIHAR SUBAI SUNNI MAJLIS AVAQAF & ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 24/07/1968 BENCH: BACHAWAT, R.S. … the pillow spotWebthe 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 … siddharth . vedulaWebthe 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 the pillows return to the third movementWebMar 2, 2003 · If 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 review or may condone the omission. siddharth university syllabusWebIn Ful Chand v. Nazab Ali Chowdhry 36 C. 184 : 9 C.L.J. 105 : 13 C.W.N. 134 : 1 Ind. Cas. 740 Stephen and Doss, JJ. also held that the absence of the wife makes no difference to … the pillows penalty life mp3WebIf 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 … the pillows purple appleWebIn 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; (b) the explanation therefore; the pillows rookie jet