Dr. Solanki & Ors v Annesely (HC 12230 of 2016; HH 303 of 2017) [2017] ZWHHC 303 (17 May 2017)

Dr. Solanki & Ors v Annesely (HC 12230 of 2016; HH 303 of 2017) [2017] ZWHHC 303 (17 May 2017)

The application was not urgent due to applicants' delay, lack of explanation for non-timeous action, material non-disclosure, and absence of any right to protect. The application was a disguised attempt to reverse a Supreme Court judgment and constituted an abuse of court process.

Citation
[2017] ZWHHC 303
Parties
Applicant: Dr Vivek Solanki; Applicant: Autoband Investments (Private) Limited; Applicant: Streamleigh Investments; Respondent: Peter John Annesley
Court
Harare High Court
Jurisdiction
Zimbabwe
Judgment Date
17 May 2017
Case Number
HC 12230 of 2016 ; HH 303 of 2017
Procedural Posture
Urgent Chamber Application / Ruling on Urgency and Interim Relief
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs on a legal practitioner and client scale.
Legal Topics
Urgency in Applications, Anti Dissipation Interdict, Interim and Final Relief, Abuse of Court Process
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Urgency in Applications Anti Dissipation Interdict Interim and Final Relief 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 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dr Vivek Solanki

Applicant

Autoband Investments (Private) Limited

Applicant

Streamleigh Investments

Applicant

Peter John Annesley

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Chamber Application / Ruling on Urgency and Interim Relief

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application is urgent
  2. 2 Whether applicants are entitled to an anti-dissipation interdict
  3. 3 Whether there was material non-disclosure by applicants

Ratio Decidendi

The application was not urgent due to applicants' delay, lack of explanation for non-timeous action, material non-disclosure, and absence of any right to protect. The application was a disguised attempt to reverse a Supreme Court judgment and constituted an abuse of court process.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs on a legal practitioner and client scale.

Orders

  • Application dismissed for lack of urgency.
  • First and second applicants to bear costs on a legal practitioner and client scale.