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

Nyaradzai Matanhire and Jairos Tamangani v Tendai Mandipira and The Sheriff of Zimbabwe

HH 426-13

Case Details

Court
Harare High Court
Date
15 November 2013
Citation
HH 426-13
Neutral Citation
[2013] ZWHH 426
Outcome
unknown
Case Type
Urgent Application

Bench

Presiding
Takuva J
Full Bench
Takuva J
Areas of Law
Civil ProcedureExecution of judgments
Keywords
Stay of executionUrgencyJudicial referralAttachment
Tags
Stay of executionUrgent applicationJudicial recusal
legislation
Statutes Cited
  • 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
  • 1
  • 9
  • 5
  • 0
  • ,
  • a
  • r
  • t
  • s
  • 3
  • ,
  • 5
  • ,
  • 6
  • ,
  • 1
  • 4
  • H
  • u
  • m
  • a
  • n
  • R
  • i
  • g
  • h
  • t
  • s
  • A
  • c
  • t
  • 1
  • 9
  • 9
  • 8
  • C
  • r
  • i
  • m
  • e
  • (
  • S
  • e
  • n
  • t
  • e
  • n
  • c
  • e
  • s
  • )
  • A
  • c
  • t
  • 1
  • 9
  • 9
  • 7
  • C
  • r
  • i
  • m
  • i
  • n
  • a
  • l
  • J
  • u
  • s
  • t
  • i
  • c
  • e
  • A
  • c
  • t
  • 2
  • 0
  • 0
  • 3
  • P
  • o
  • w
  • e
  • r
  • s
  • o
  • f
  • C
  • r
  • i
  • m
  • i
  • n
  • a
  • l
  • C
  • o
  • u
  • r
  • t
  • s
  • (
  • S
  • e
  • n
  • t
  • e
  • n
  • c
  • i
  • n
  • g
  • )
  • A
  • c
  • t
  • 2
  • 0
  • 0
  • 0
  • P
  • r
  • i
  • s
  • o
  • n
  • A
  • c
  • t
  • 1
  • 9
  • 5
  • 2
  • P
  • a
  • r
  • o
  • l
  • e
  • B
  • o
  • a
  • r
  • d
  • R
  • u
  • l
  • e
  • s
  • 2
  • 0
  • 0
  • 4
  • (
  • S
  • I
  • 2
  • 0
  • 0
  • 4
  • /
  • 5
  • 7
  • 4
  • )
  • L
  • i
  • f
  • e
  • S
  • e
  • n
  • t
  • e
  • n
  • c
  • e
  • s
  • (
  • R
  • e
  • v
  • i
  • e
  • w
  • o
  • f
  • S
  • e
  • n
  • t
  • e
  • n
  • c
  • i
  • n
  • g
  • )
  • O
  • r
  • d
  • e
  • r
  • 2
  • 0
  • 0
  • 3
  • (
  • S
  • I
  • 2
  • 0
  • 0
  • 3
  • /
  • 1
  • 6
  • 5
  • 6
  • )
  • L
  • i
  • f
  • e
  • S
  • e
  • n
  • t
  • e
  • n
  • c
  • e
  • s
  • (
  • R
  • e
  • v
  • i
  • e
  • w
  • o
  • f
  • S
  • e
  • n
  • t
  • e
  • n
  • c
  • i
  • n
  • g
  • )
  • O
  • r
  • d
  • e
  • r
  • 2
  • 0
  • 0
  • 8
  • (
  • S
  • I
  • 2
  • 0
  • 0
  • 8
  • /
  • 2
  • 2
  • 9
  • 7
  • )
  • L
  • i
  • f
  • e
  • S
  • e
  • n
  • t
  • e
  • n
  • c
  • e
  • s
  • (
  • R
  • e
  • v
  • i
  • e
  • w
  • o
  • f
  • S
  • e
  • n
  • t
  • e
  • n
  • c
  • i
  • n
  • g
  • )
  • O
  • r
  • d
  • e
  • r
  • 2
  • 0
  • 1
  • 3
  • (
  • S
  • I
  • 2
  • 0
  • 1
  • 3
  • /
  • 6
  • 2
  • 3
  • )
ai analysis
Case Summary

Key Issues

  • {"issue_text":"Whether the court should hear an urgent application for stay of execution that had already been decided by another judge","issue_type":"procedural","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Previous decision by Mangota J in HC 8602/13"}
This summary was generated by AI. Use Zalari to read the full judgment.
background
Facts of the Case

Background

The applicants filed an urgent application for stay of execution. The first respondent pointed out that the same matter had already been decided by Mangota J in case HC 8602/13 on 15 October 2013, who found the matter no longer urgent due to Annexure C (Notice of seizure and attachment dated 14 October 2013).
Read the full judgment, get AI analysis, and find related cases
Open in Zalari →