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

M. Kamanda and B. Gumunyu v Sibkey Investments and The Deputy Sheriff Masvingo N.O.

HH 310-13

Case Details

Court
Harare High Court
Date
18 September 2013
Citation
HH 310-13
Neutral Citation
[2013] ZWHH 310
Outcome
unknown
Case Type
Urgent Application

Bench

Presiding
Mangota J
Full Bench
Mangota J
Areas of Law
Property LawCivil Procedure
Keywords
statutory tenancydeed of settlementdefault judgmenturgency
Tags
landlord-tenantlease agreementstay of executionrescission of judgment
legislation
Statutes Cited
  • N
  • o
  • n
  • e
  • n
  • o
  • s
  • t
  • a
  • t
  • u
  • t
  • e
  • (
  • w
  • h
  • e
  • t
  • h
  • e
  • r
  • A
  • c
  • t
  • o
  • f
  • P
  • a
  • r
  • l
  • i
  • a
  • m
  • e
  • n
  • t
  • o
  • r
  • s
  • u
  • b
  • s
  • i
  • d
  • i
  • a
  • r
  • y
  • l
  • e
  • g
  • i
  • s
  • l
  • a
  • t
  • i
  • o
  • n
  • )
  • i
  • s
  • q
  • u
  • o
  • t
  • e
  • d
  • ,
  • p
  • a
  • r
  • a
  • p
  • h
  • r
  • a
  • s
  • e
  • d
  • o
  • r
  • r
  • e
  • l
  • i
  • e
  • d
  • u
  • p
  • o
  • n
  • .
ai analysis
Case Summary

Key Issues

  • {"issue_text":"Whether the application is urgent","issue_type":"procedural","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Applicants filed 7 days after service of writ; had knowledge of negotiations from March 2013"}
  • {"issue_text":"Whether the applicants had right of audience","issue_type":"procedural","dispositive":"no","related_facts":"Second applicant had no papers filed"}
  • {"issue_text":"Whether the applicants were guilty of material non-disclosure","issue_type":"procedural","dispositive":"no","related_facts":"Applicants claimed ignorance of negotiations despite circumstantial evidence"}
This summary was generated by AI. Use Zalari to read the full judgment.
background
Facts of the Case

Background

The applicants, who were tenants of the first respondent, sought an urgent stay of execution of a default judgment entered against them on 25 July 2013. The judgment was based on a Deed of Settlement negotiated by the first respondent with the applicants' sub-tenants' legal representatives, which the applicants claimed they had not authorized. The applicants argued they would suffer irreparable harm if evicted before their rescission application could be heard.
Read the full judgment, get AI analysis, and find related cases
Open in Zalari →