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

John Tranos Matukutire v Ratidzai Matukutire and Memory Nzounhenda and Artheur Masimba Nyamutamba

HH 771-22

Case Details

Court
Harare High Court
Date
18 November 2022
Citation
HH 771-22
Neutral Citation
[2022] ZWHH 771
Outcome
unknown
Case Type
Application

Bench

Presiding
CHITAPI J
Full Bench
CHITAPI J
Areas of Law
Property lawCivil procedure
Keywords
Lis pendensRes judicataMaterial disputes of factAgreement of saleInterdict
Tags
Property disputeLis pendensSale agreement validityInterdict
legislation
Statutes Cited
  • N
  • o
  • s
  • t
  • a
  • t
  • u
  • t
  • e
  • s
  • w
  • e
  • r
  • e
  • c
  • i
  • t
  • e
  • d
  • i
  • n
  • t
  • h
  • i
  • s
  • j
  • u
  • d
  • g
  • m
  • e
  • n
  • t
  • .
  • T
  • h
  • e
  • c
  • o
  • u
  • r
  • t
  • r
  • e
  • l
  • i
  • e
  • d
  • e
  • n
  • t
  • i
  • r
  • e
  • l
  • y
  • o
  • n
  • c
  • o
  • m
  • m
  • o
  • n
  • l
  • a
  • w
  • p
  • r
  • i
  • n
  • c
  • i
  • p
  • l
  • e
  • s
  • a
  • n
  • d
  • c
  • a
  • s
  • e
  • l
  • a
  • w
  • a
  • u
  • t
  • h
  • o
  • r
  • i
  • t
  • i
  • e
  • s
  • .
  • #
  • #
  • #
  • O
  • T
  • H
  • E
  • R
  • A
  • U
  • T
  • H
  • O
  • R
  • I
  • T
  • I
  • E
  • S
ai analysis
Case Summary

Key Issues

  • {"issue_text":"Whether current application is barred by lis pendens due to pending HC 6135/20","issue_type":"procedural","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Same parties, same property dispute, HC 6135/20 filed first"}
  • {"issue_text":"Whether material disputes of fact exist requiring action rather than application procedure","issue_type":"procedural","dispositive":"no","related_facts":"Disputes over sale agreement validity, payment, authority"}
This summary was generated by AI. Use Zalari to read the full judgment.
background
Facts of the Case

Background

Applicant sought to invalidate sale agreement of property and obtain interdict against interference with his possession. Property dispute involved applicant, his estranged wife (1st respondent) and purchasers (2nd and 3rd respondents). Same dispute already subject of pending case HC 6135/20 and previous consent order in HC 7254/20.
Read the full judgment, get AI analysis, and find related cases
Open in Zalari →