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

Zimbabwe Consolidated Diamond Company (Pvt) Ltd v Adelcraft Investments (Pvt) Ltd

CCZ 2/24

Case Details

Court
Constitutional Court
Date
17 January 2024
Citation
CCZ 2/24
Neutral Citation
[2024] ZWCCZ 2
Outcome
unknown
Case Type
Application for Direct Access

Bench

Presiding
GWAUNZA DCJ
Author
PATEL JCC
Full Bench
GWAUNZA DCJMAKARAU JCCPATEL JCC
Areas of Law
Constitutional LawCivil ProcedureAdministrative Law
Keywords
Direct AccessPeremptionFair HearingAccess to CourtsEqual Protection
Tags
Constitutional ReviewSupreme Court ReviewFundamental Rights
legislation
Statutes Cited
  • Constitution of Zimbabwe, 2013
  • Constitution of Zimbabwe, 2013
  • Constitution of Zimbabwe, 2013
  • Constitution of Zimbabwe, 2013
  • Constitution of Zimbabwe, 2013
  • Constitutional Court Rules, 2016
  • Supreme Court Rules, 2018
ai analysis
Case Summary

Key Issues

  • {"issue_text":"Whether the Constitutional Court has jurisdiction to entertain the matter","issue_type":"procedural","dispositive":"no","related_facts":"The Supreme Court dealt with a non-constitutional matter (peremption)"}
  • {"issue_text":"Whether the application is a disguised appeal","issue_type":"procedural","dispositive":"no","related_facts":"Applicant challenges correctness of Supreme Court decision"}
  • {"issue_text":"Whether it is in the interests of justice to grant direct access","issue_type":"procedural","dispositive":"no","related_facts":"Applicant alleges violation of constitutional rights"}
  • {"issue_text":"Whether the intended substantive application carries prospects of success","issue_type":"procedural","dispositive":"no","related_facts":"Applicant alleges violation of sections 56(1), 69(2) and (3)"}
  • {"issue_text":"Whether the Supreme Court violated section 56(1) (equal protection)","issue_type":"constitutional","dispositive":"no","related_facts":"Supreme Court dismissed appeal on preliminary objection"}
  • {"issue_text":"Whether the Supreme Court violated sections 69(2) and (3) (fair hearing and access to courts)","issue_type":"constitutional","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Supreme Court failed to adjudicate merits due to alleged peremption"}
This summary was generated by AI. Use Zalari to read the full judgment.
background
Facts of the Case

Background

The applicant was ordered by the High Court to pay the respondent a substantial debt. The applicant appealed to the Supreme Court. While the appeal was pending, the respondent obtained leave to execute, attached the applicant's property, and the parties entered into a settlement agreement. The applicant made partial payments and withdrew an application for leave to appeal against the execution order. The Supreme Court found this conduct constituted peremption and dismissed the appeal. The applicant now argues this violated its constitutional rights to a fair hearing and access to courts.
Read the full judgment, get AI analysis, and find related cases
Open in Zalari →