Fairclot Investments (Private) Limited v (1) Augur Investments OA (2) Doorex Properties (Private) Limited (3) The Sheriff of Zimbabwe (4) The Registrar of Deeds
Direct accessConstitutional CourtSupreme Court finalitySection 56(1)Section 69(2)Arbitral awardS.I. 33/19
Tags
Direct accessFundamental rightsSupreme Court finality
legislation
Statutes Cited
Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment (No. 20) Act, 2013
Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment (No. 20) Act, 2013
Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment (No. 20) Act, 2013
Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment (No. 20) Act, 2013
Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment (No. 20) Act, 2013
Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment (No. 20) Act, 2013
Supreme Court Act
Civil Evidence Act
Interpretation Act
ai analysis
Case Summary
Key Issues
{"issue_text":"Whether the applicant should be granted direct access to the Constitutional Court","issue_type":"procedural","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Application challenges Supreme Court decision in non-constitutional matter"}
{"issue_text":"Whether the Supreme Court decision violated the applicant's rights under section 56(1) of the Constitution","issue_type":"constitutional","dispositive":"no","related_facts":"Alleged unequal treatment and disregard of High Court order"}
{"issue_text":"Whether the Supreme Court decision violated the applicant's rights under section 69(2) of the Constitution","issue_type":"constitutional","dispositive":"no","related_facts":"Alleged unfair hearing and arbitrary decision"}
This summary was generated by AI. Use Zalari to read the full judgment.
background
Facts of the Case
Background
The applicant obtained an arbitral award against the first respondent in 2015 for USD 4.8 million. After S.I. 33/19 converted USD obligations to RTGS dollars at 1:1 rate effective 22 February 2019, the applicant registered the award as a High Court order in June 2019. The Supreme Court later held that the award was subject to S.I. 33/19 and payable at the 1:1 rate. The applicant sought direct access to the Constitutional Court alleging this violated its fundamental rights.
Read the full judgment, get AI analysis, and find related cases