lease agreementcancellationejectmentright of first refusalvindicatio
Tags
lease cancellationejectmentright of first refusalvindicatory action
legislation
Statutes Cited
C
r
i
m
i
n
a
l
J
u
s
t
i
c
e
A
c
t
2
0
0
3
H
u
m
a
n
R
i
g
h
t
s
A
c
t
1
9
9
8
E
u
r
o
p
e
a
n
C
o
n
v
e
n
t
i
o
n
o
n
H
u
m
a
n
R
i
g
h
t
s
P
r
i
s
o
n
A
c
t
1
9
5
2
O
f
f
e
n
d
e
r
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
A
c
t
2
0
0
7
L
e
g
a
l
A
i
d
,
S
e
n
t
e
n
c
i
n
g
a
n
d
P
u
n
i
s
h
m
e
n
t
o
f
O
f
f
e
n
d
e
r
s
A
c
t
2
0
1
2
C
r
i
m
i
n
a
l
J
u
s
t
i
c
e
a
n
d
C
o
u
r
t
s
A
c
t
2
0
1
5
C
r
i
m
i
n
a
l
J
u
s
t
i
c
e
a
n
d
I
m
m
i
g
r
a
t
i
o
n
A
c
t
2
0
0
8
C
o
r
o
n
a
v
i
r
u
s
A
c
t
2
0
2
0
C
r
i
m
i
n
a
l
P
r
o
c
e
d
u
r
e
R
u
l
e
s
2
0
2
0
C
i
v
i
l
P
r
o
c
e
d
u
r
e
R
u
l
e
s
1
9
9
8
ai analysis
Case Summary
Key Issues
{"issue_text":"Whether the second defendant had a right of first refusal of this property before it could be sold to anyone inclusive of the second plaintiff rendering the whole purported sale of this property by the first plaintiff null and void","issue_type":"mixed","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Second defendant made offer of approximately US$300,000; Second plaintiff purchased for US$520,000; Second defendant denied having such right"}
{"issue_text":"Whether the first and second defendants were given notice to vacate the property","issue_type":"factual","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Notice dated 8 November 2010 served; Defendants' lawyers acknowledged receipt in letter of 13 December 2010"}
{"issue_text":"Whether the first and second defendants and all those claiming occupation through them should be ejected from 93 Enterprise Road","issue_type":"law","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Lease expired 31 December 2010; Second plaintiff is registered owner; No rent paid"}
This summary was generated by AI. Use Zalari to read the full judgment.
background
Facts of the Case
Background
The plaintiffs sought confirmation of lease cancellation and ejectment of defendants from No. 93 Enterprise Road, Highlands, Harare. The first plaintiff had leased the property to the first defendant until 31 December 2010. After lease expiry, defendants refused to vacate despite notice. The property was subsequently sold to the second plaintiff, but defendants claimed right of first refusal.
Read the full judgment, get AI analysis, and find related cases