Dr. Madondo (N.O.) v Dauramanzi & Ors (HC 2797 of 2014; HH 214 of 2017) [2017] ZWHHC 214 (30 March 2017)

Dr. Madondo (N.O.) v Dauramanzi & Ors (HC 2797 of 2014; HH 214 of 2017) [2017] ZWHHC 214 (30 March 2017)

The plaintiffs adopted the wrong procedure by bringing an action for a declaratory order instead of seeking review of the Master's decision within the statutory period. The grounds raised were reviewable irregularities, not suitable for declaratory relief. The application is dismissed with costs on a higher scale.

Citation
[2017] ZWHHC 214
Parties
Plaintiff: Dr Cecil Madondo N.O.; Plaintiff: Cecilia Vimbainashe Dauramanzi; Defendant: Brian Mapurisa; Defendant: Freddy Chimbari N.O.; Defendant: The Master of the High Court; Defendant: Chivhu Holdings (Pvt) Ltd; Defendant: The Registrar of Companies
Court
Harare High Court
Jurisdiction
Zimbabwe
Judgment Date
30 March 2017
Case Number
HC 2797 of 2014 ; HH 214 of 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil / Trial Judgment
Outcome
dismissed
Legal Topics
Estate Administration, Company Shareholding, Review Vs Declaratory Relief, Procedural Compliance
Source Language
English
Succession Law Company Law Civil Procedure Estate Administration Company Shareholding Review Vs Declaratory Relief Procedural Compliance

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dr Cecil Madondo N.O.

Plaintiff

Cecilia Vimbainashe Dauramanzi

Plaintiff

Brian Mapurisa

Defendant

Freddy Chimbari N.O.

Defendant

The Master of the High Court

Defendant

Chivhu Holdings (Pvt) Ltd

Defendant

The Registrar of Companies

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the second registration of the Estate Late Robson Mapurisa under DR1686/10 was unlawful and should be set aside
  2. 2 Whether the changes to the company register made by the first defendant pursuant to the provisions of the second estate should be reversed
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiffs adopted the correct procedure in bringing the matter by action procedure

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiffs adopted the wrong procedure by bringing an action for a declaratory order instead of seeking review of the Master's decision within the statutory period. The grounds raised were reviewable irregularities, not suitable for declaratory relief. The application is dismissed with costs on a higher scale.

Court Disposition

dismissed

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • The first and second plaintiffs are ordered to pay costs on a client-attorney scale, jointly and severally, the one paying the other to be absolved.