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

First Mutual Investment (Private) Limited v Roussaland Enterprises (Private) Limited t/a Third World Bazzar and Smith C. Okonkwo and Dadirai V.T. Okonkwo

HH 301-17

Case Details

Court
Harare High Court
Date
15 May 2017
Citation
HH 301-17
Neutral Citation
[2017] ZWHH 301
Outcome
unknown
Case Type
Application

Bench

Presiding
Mangota J
Full Bench
Mangota J
Areas of Law
Contract lawCompany lawProperty law
Keywords
Lease cancellationSuretyship agreementAuthority to sueSuspensive conditionCorporate representation
Tags
Lease agreementSuretyshipContract lawCorporate representation
legislation
Statutes Cited
  • C
  • o
  • n
  • t
  • e
  • m
  • p
  • t
  • o
  • f
  • C
  • o
  • u
  • r
  • t
  • A
  • c
  • t
  • 1
  • 9
  • 8
  • 1
  • (
  • s
  • .
  • 8
  • )
  • C
  • r
  • i
  • m
  • i
  • n
  • a
  • l
  • P
  • r
  • o
  • c
  • e
  • d
  • u
  • r
  • e
  • a
  • n
  • d
  • I
  • n
  • v
  • e
  • s
  • t
  • i
  • g
  • a
  • t
  • i
  • o
  • n
  • s
  • A
  • c
  • t
  • 1
  • 9
  • 9
  • 6
  • C
  • r
  • i
  • m
  • i
  • n
  • a
  • l
  • J
  • u
  • s
  • t
  • i
  • c
  • e
  • A
  • c
  • t
  • 2
  • 0
  • 0
  • 3
  • (
  • s
  • s
  • .
  • 1
  • 1
  • 4
  • ,
  • 1
  • 1
  • 6
  • ,
  • 1
  • 2
  • 5
  • ,
  • 1
  • 2
  • 6
  • )
  • 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
  • (
  • A
  • r
  • t
  • 6
  • )
ai analysis
Case Summary

Key Issues

  • {"issue_text":"Whether the deponent had requisite authority to institute proceedings on behalf of the applicant company","issue_type":"procedural","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Deponent is property manager; no board resolution produced; authority challenged by respondents"}
  • {"issue_text":"Whether the court has jurisdiction despite arbitration clause in lease agreement","issue_type":"procedural","dispositive":"no","related_facts":"Clause 6.1 and 34.1 provide for arbitration; respondents argued rent dispute should go to arbitrator"}
  • {"issue_text":"Whether the suspensive condition in the suretyship was fulfilled","issue_type":"mixed","dispositive":"no","related_facts":"Only one director signed instead of required two; condition precedent not met"}
This summary was generated by AI. Use Zalari to read the full judgment.
background
Facts of the Case

Background

The applicant company sought eviction and payment of rental arrears from respondents who were lessees and sureties. The lease agreement contained a suspensive condition requiring two directors to sign suretyship deeds, but only one director signed. The respondents raised a preliminary point challenging the deponent's authority to sue on behalf of the applicant company.
Read the full judgment, get AI analysis, and find related cases
Open in Zalari →