Sande v Sande (Civil Cause 76 of 2021) [2021] MWHC 397 (29 September 2021)

Sande v Sande (Civil Cause 76 of 2021) [2021] MWHC 397 (29 September 2021)

The court found that there were serious questions to be tried regarding the rights of the parties in the partnership property, that damages would not be an adequate remedy, and that non-compliance with the procedural requirement to file an inter-partes application within 7 days was not fatal. The injunction was necessary to preserve the status quo and prevent irreparable harm.

Citation
[2021] MWHC 397
Parties
Claimant: Laness Sande; Defendant: Mark Sande
Court
High Court of Malawi
Jurisdiction
Malawi
Judgment Date
29 September 2021
Case Number
Civil Cause 76 of 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil / Ruling on Application to Vacate/vary Interlocutory Prohibitory Injunction
Outcome
Defendant's application to vacate the interlocutory prohibitory injunction is rejected; injunction subsists.
Legal Topics
Interlocutory Injunctions, Abuse of Process, Partnership Property, Compliance With Court Orders
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Property Law Partnership Law Interlocutory Injunctions Abuse of Process Partnership Property Compliance With Court Orders

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Laness Sande

Claimant

Mark Sande

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Ruling on Application to Vacate/vary Interlocutory Prohibitory Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the interlocutory prohibitory injunction should be vacated for abuse of process, non-compliance with court orders, or lack of serious question to be tried

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that there were serious questions to be tried regarding the rights of the parties in the partnership property, that damages would not be an adequate remedy, and that non-compliance with the procedural requirement to file an inter-partes application within 7 days was not fatal. The injunction was necessary to preserve the status quo and prevent irreparable harm.

Court Disposition

Defendant's application to vacate the interlocutory prohibitory injunction is rejected; injunction subsists.

Orders

  • Interlocutory prohibitory injunction granted to the Claimant remains in force.
  • Costs are in the cause.