Back to top
Zalari has raised $2 million USD in a founding round led by Nyamaropa Technologies
Harare High Court

Brian Justice Enterprises (Private) Limited v H.E.R. (Private) Limited and Nitsa Andrea Olympios and Paris Olympios and Christos Venturas and Registrar of Deeds

HH 33-12

Case Details

Court
Harare High Court
Date
3 February 2012
Citation
HH 33-12
Neutral Citation
[2012] ZWHH 33
Outcome
unknown
Case Type
Urgent Application

Bench

Presiding
Hungwe J
Full Bench
Hungwe J
Areas of Law
Company LawContract LawProperty Law
Keywords
InterdictShare transferImmovable propertyPrima facie rightIrreparable harm
Tags
InterdictShare sale agreementImmovable property
legislation
Statutes Cited
  • N
  • o
  • n
  • e
  • n
  • o
  • s
  • t
  • a
  • t
  • u
  • t
  • e
  • o
  • r
  • s
  • t
  • a
  • t
  • u
  • t
  • o
  • r
  • y
  • p
  • r
  • o
  • v
  • i
  • s
  • i
  • o
  • n
  • i
  • s
  • q
  • u
  • o
  • t
  • e
  • d
  • o
  • r
  • i
  • n
  • t
  • e
  • r
  • p
  • r
  • e
  • t
  • e
  • d
  • .
ai analysis
Case Summary

Key Issues

  • {"issue_text":"Whether applicant has established a prima facie right to warrant interim interdict","issue_type":"mixed","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Share sale agreement, payment dispute, pending litigation"}
  • {"issue_text":"Whether applicant has well-grounded apprehension of irreparable harm","issue_type":"mixed","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Attempts to sell immovable property, third respondent's control"}
  • {"issue_text":"Whether balance of convenience favors granting interdict","issue_type":"mixed","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Prejudice to parties, availability of other remedies"}
This summary was generated by AI. Use Zalari to read the full judgment.
background
Facts of the Case

Background

The applicant company bought 50% shareholding in the first respondent company for US$600,000 and paid in full, but the first respondent resisted transfer of shares. Meanwhile, the applicant discovered that the respondents were attempting to dispose of the first respondent's only immovable asset - a petrol station - which would cause irreparable harm to the applicant's interests.
Read the full judgment, get AI analysis, and find related cases
Open in Zalari →