{"issue_text":"Whether an application in terms of Rule 39 of the Supreme Court Rules can be made by way of chamber application","issue_type":"procedural","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Application was brought as chamber application before single judge"}
{"issue_text":"Whether this application complied with Rule 39(4) of the Supreme Court Rules","issue_type":"procedural","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Application lacked required affidavits and supporting documents"}
{"issue_text":"Whether this was an application for permission to approach the appeal judges rather than actual application under Rule 39(4)","issue_type":"procedural","dispositive":"no","related_facts":"Applicant claimed it was merely seeking permission to approach original judges"}
{"issue_text":"Whether application to lead further evidence can be made after court has heard appeal and reserved judgment","issue_type":"procedural","dispositive":"no","related_facts":"Appeal had been heard and judgment reserved"}
This summary was generated by AI. Use Zalari to read the full judgment.
background
Facts of the Case
Background
The applicant sought to lead further evidence before the Supreme Court after the court had already heard an appeal and reserved judgment. The application was brought as a chamber application seeking to correct allegedly incorrect information given to the court during the appeal hearing regarding developments on a piece of land in Goromonzi.
Read the full judgment, get AI analysis, and find related cases