Lunga N.O. & Anor v Gumo & Ors (HC 6388 of 2014; HC 8415 of 2015; HC 8496 of 2014; Ref HC 8447 of 2015) [2015] ZWHHC 743 (23 September 2015)

Lunga N.O. & Anor v Gumo & Ors (HC 6388 of 2014; HC 8415 of 2015; HC 8496 of 2014; Ref HC 8447 of 2015) [2015] ZWHHC 743 (23 September 2015)

Applicant satisfied all requirements for an interim interdict. She had a prima facie right as provisional liquidator, faced irreparable harm if relief was not granted, the balance of convenience favoured her, and there was no other satisfactory remedy. Respondents' conduct amounted to abuse of court process and undermined the justice system.

Citation
[2015] ZWHHC 743
Parties
Applicant: Barbra Lunga N.O.; Applicant: Barbra Lunga; Respondent: Jonah Gumo; Respondent: Shelter Muchechesi Mpofu; Respondent: Thomas Tongai Samunda; Respondent: Master of the High Court; Respondent: Deputy Master, Bulawayo
Court
Harare High Court
Jurisdiction
Zimbabwe
Judgment Date
23 September 2015
Case Number
HC 6388 of 2014 ; HC 8415 of 2015 ; HC 8496 of 2014 ; Ref HC 8447 of 2015
Procedural Posture
Urgent Chamber Application / Interlocutory Application for Interim Interdict Pending Rescission
Outcome
Interim interdict granted
Legal Topics
Provisional Liquidation, Interim Interdicts, Rescission of Judgment, Abuse of Court Process
Source Language
English
Company Law Civil Procedure Provisional Liquidation Interim Interdicts Rescission of Judgment Abuse of Court Process

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 1 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Barbra Lunga N.O.

Applicant

Barbra Lunga

Applicant

Jonah Gumo

Respondent

Shelter Muchechesi Mpofu

Respondent

Thomas Tongai Samunda

Respondent

Master of the High Court

Respondent

Deputy Master, Bulawayo

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Chamber Application / Interlocutory Application for Interim Interdict Pending Rescission

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to an interim interdict restraining implementation of a default judgment pending determination of rescission application
  2. 2 Whether the applicant is non-suited after removal as provisional liquidator
  3. 3 Whether urgency was self-created

Ratio Decidendi

Applicant satisfied all requirements for an interim interdict. She had a prima facie right as provisional liquidator, faced irreparable harm if relief was not granted, the balance of convenience favoured her, and there was no other satisfactory remedy. Respondents' conduct amounted to abuse of court process and undermined the justice system.

Court Disposition

Interim interdict granted

Orders

  • First, second, third and fifth respondents are interdicted and prohibited from giving effect to, or implementing, the default judgment under HC 6388/14 or from dealing with the affairs of Zexcom Foundation Investments Fund Limited in any manner inconsistent with existing court orders in favour of the applicant,...