News / National
MP Guzah's son case not urgent
07 Jul 2018 at 09:13hrs | Views
HIGH Court judge Justice, Thompson Mabhikwa recently dismissed, as not urgent, an application filed by Hurungwe West MP Keith Guzah's son, Kevin together with his girlfriend, Kudzai Nduku demanding, a whopping $771 895 compensation from some Chinese nationals who allegedly shot the pair at Belgravia Shopping Centre in Harare.
Guzah and Nduku filed the litigation on March 20, 2018 citing Luo Tingpen, Li Yize, Gamuchirai Nigel Zuze, Jinglong Security Company (Pvt) Ltd and Ming Chang Sino Africa (Pvt) Ltd as co-respondents.
The duo had said the urgent litigation had emanated from an incident which occurred on February 19, 2018 when they were "mercilessly shot and assaulted by Tingpen, Yize and Zuze using firearms belonging to Jinglong Security Company".
However, when the matter was set for determination on the question of urgency, Guzah did not turn up and only Nduku appeared in court to give evidence.
It was Nduku's evidence that she sustained severe wounds, with the possibility of permanent injury and/or disability being highly likely. As a result, she told the court she was seeking urgent redress of the matter so to enable herself to cater for exorbitant medical costs.
But, in his judgment, Justice Mabhikwa said the relief which Nduku and Guzah were seeking "was clearly not a competent one".
"The application for an order compelling the respondents to contribute towards medical expenses, which applicants abandoned anyway, was not supported by corresponding medical evidence, not the general delictual damages claimed in the main action," the judge said.
"There was no proof of urgency of the alleged expenses necessary to avert the alleged danger to life if so shown.
There was no evidence to show current medical attention and the period it would take to avert the danger so alleged. There was no proof of the amount of physiotherapy fees, ambulance fees, wound dressing fees etc."
Ultimately, the judge said there was no urgency in reality except to say Guzah and Nduku wanted the court "to consider first applicant's (Nduku) injuries, sympathise with her and find cause for urgency".
Justice Mabhikwa further said the certificate of urgency filed by the duo's lawyers was also fatally defective adding: "Applicants (Nduku and Guzah) application continued to be no more than a plea to "jump the que" and determine the whole claim on an urgent basis through a chamber application, before the respondents' liability or otherwise was also determined".
Guzah and Nduku filed the litigation on March 20, 2018 citing Luo Tingpen, Li Yize, Gamuchirai Nigel Zuze, Jinglong Security Company (Pvt) Ltd and Ming Chang Sino Africa (Pvt) Ltd as co-respondents.
The duo had said the urgent litigation had emanated from an incident which occurred on February 19, 2018 when they were "mercilessly shot and assaulted by Tingpen, Yize and Zuze using firearms belonging to Jinglong Security Company".
However, when the matter was set for determination on the question of urgency, Guzah did not turn up and only Nduku appeared in court to give evidence.
It was Nduku's evidence that she sustained severe wounds, with the possibility of permanent injury and/or disability being highly likely. As a result, she told the court she was seeking urgent redress of the matter so to enable herself to cater for exorbitant medical costs.
But, in his judgment, Justice Mabhikwa said the relief which Nduku and Guzah were seeking "was clearly not a competent one".
"The application for an order compelling the respondents to contribute towards medical expenses, which applicants abandoned anyway, was not supported by corresponding medical evidence, not the general delictual damages claimed in the main action," the judge said.
"There was no proof of urgency of the alleged expenses necessary to avert the alleged danger to life if so shown.
There was no evidence to show current medical attention and the period it would take to avert the danger so alleged. There was no proof of the amount of physiotherapy fees, ambulance fees, wound dressing fees etc."
Ultimately, the judge said there was no urgency in reality except to say Guzah and Nduku wanted the court "to consider first applicant's (Nduku) injuries, sympathise with her and find cause for urgency".
Justice Mabhikwa further said the certificate of urgency filed by the duo's lawyers was also fatally defective adding: "Applicants (Nduku and Guzah) application continued to be no more than a plea to "jump the que" and determine the whole claim on an urgent basis through a chamber application, before the respondents' liability or otherwise was also determined".
Source - newsday
