Core-Wellness Centre & Ors v Flight & Ors (HC 3643 of 2017; HH 306 of 2017) [2017] ZWHHC 306 (17 May 2017)

Core-Wellness Centre & Ors v Flight & Ors (HC 3643 of 2017; HH 306 of 2017) [2017] ZWHHC 306 (17 May 2017)

The second applicant is the sole holder of the operating licence for the premises and has established a prima facie right. The respondents have no authority to alter the terms or interfere with the licence. The requirements for an interim interdict are met as there is imminent irreparable harm, no alternative remedy, and the balance of convenience favours the applicants.

Citation
[2017] ZWHHC 306
Parties
Applicant: Core-Wellness Centre; Applicant: Itai Ngwerume; Respondent: Heather Lynn Flight; Respondent: Cheri Kayla Long; Respondent: Brian Nugent
Court
Harare High Court
Jurisdiction
Zimbabwe
Judgment Date
17 May 2017
Case Number
HC 3643 of 2017 ; HH 306 of 2017
Procedural Posture
Urgent Chamber Application / Ruling on Interim Interdict
Outcome
application granted
Legal Topics
Interdicts, Locus Standi, Company Directorship, Licence Compliance, Urgent Applications
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Company Law Licensing Law Interdicts Locus Standi Company Directorship Licence Compliance Urgent Applications

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Core-Wellness Centre

Applicant

Itai Ngwerume

Applicant

Heather Lynn Flight

Respondent

Cheri Kayla Long

Respondent

Brian Nugent

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Chamber Application / Ruling on Interim Interdict

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants are entitled to an interim interdict against the first and second respondents to restore the status quo ante and prohibit interference with the operating licence.
  2. 2 Whether the first and second respondents have locus standi to alter the terms and conditions of the licence.
  3. 3 Whether the requirements for an interim interdict have been met.

Ratio Decidendi

The second applicant is the sole holder of the operating licence for the premises and has established a prima facie right. The respondents have no authority to alter the terms or interfere with the licence. The requirements for an interim interdict are met as there is imminent irreparable harm, no alternative remedy, and the balance of convenience favours the applicants.

Court Disposition

application granted

Orders

  • The application is granted in terms of the provisional draft order.
  • The first and second respondents are ordered to restore the conditions of operation as at the time of inspection of the premises at 9B Ridgeway South.