loan contractexchange control approvallegal practitioner residencyright of audience
Tags
loan agreementexchange controlright of audiencelegal practitioner residence
legislation
Statutes Cited
Criminal Justice Act 1967
Criminal Justice Act 1982
Criminal Justice Act 1988
Criminal Justice Act 1991
Criminal Justice Act 2003
Crime (Sentences) Act 1997
Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000
Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000
Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008
Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012
Offender Rehabilitation Act 2014
Prison Act 1952
Prison Rules 1999 (SI 1999/728)
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights Act 1998
Mental Health Act 1983
Mental Capacity Act 2005
Coroners and Justice Act 2009
Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005
Police and Justice Act 2006
Criminal Defence Service Act 2006
Criminal Evidence (Witness Anonymity) Act 2008
Coronavirus Act 2020
Sentencing Act 2020
Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022
ai analysis
Case Summary
Key Issues
{"issue_text":"Whether defendant's counsel has right of audience despite residing outside Zimbabwe","issue_type":"procedural","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Counsel resides in Cape Town; practicing certificate issued for 2009"}
{"issue_text":"Whether plaintiffs' objection procedure was proper","issue_type":"procedural","dispositive":"no","related_facts":"Objection raised without formal review application"}
This summary was generated by AI. Use Zalari to read the full judgment.
background
Facts of the Case
Background
Plaintiffs claimed US$3,872,123 allegedly loaned to defendants between February and November 2001. Defendants resisted the claim, denying the contract and raising exchange control approval issues. Before trial, plaintiffs objected to defendant's counsel's right of audience, alleging he had ceased to be resident in Zimbabwe.
Read the full judgment, get AI analysis, and find related cases