InterdictOperating LicenceStatus Quo AnteBusiness OperationsHealth Facility Licence
legislation
Statutes Cited
City of Harare Health Licensing Regulations
ai analysis
Case Summary
Key Issues
{"issue_text":"Whether first applicant was properly before court as distinct from Core Wellness Centre (Private) Limited","issue_type":"procedural","dispositive":"no","related_facts":"Certificate of incorporation and CR14 form for Core Wellness Centre (Private) Limited"}
{"issue_text":"Whether second applicant required authorization from respondents to institute proceedings","issue_type":"procedural","dispositive":"no","related_facts":"Second applicant as sole licence holder"}
{"issue_text":"Whether premises were closed or operational","issue_type":"fact","dispositive":"no","related_facts":"Eviction notice and changes made to premises"}
{"issue_text":"Whether matter was urgent","issue_type":"procedural","dispositive":"no","related_facts":"Changes made on 24 April 2017 and eviction notice"}
{"issue_text":"Whether interdict requirements were met","issue_type":"law","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Prima facie right, irreparable harm, lack of alternative remedy, balance of convenience"}
{"issue_text":"Whether material facts were non-disclosed","issue_type":"procedural","dispositive":"no","related_facts":"Eviction notice mentioned in founding affidavit"}
This summary was generated by AI. Use Zalari to read the full judgment.
background
Facts of the Case
Background
Second applicant Itai Ngwerume holds sole registered licence to operate Core-Wellness Centre as health facility. First and second respondents were consultants co-opted into business but gave eviction notice and changed premises setup without authorization, violating licence conditions. Third respondent owns premises. Applicants seek interdict to restore status quo ante.
Read the full judgment, get AI analysis, and find related cases