Chinoingira v Sabre Services (Private) Limited and Another (22 of 2022) [2021] ZWSC 22 (18 November 2021)
The appeal was dismissed because the first respondent company had been dissolved by a prior court order, rendering it non-existent and incapable of being sued. The High Court was correct to strike the application off the roll.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2021] ZWSC 22
- Parties
- Appellant: Ezekiel Chinoingira; First Respondent: Sabre Services (Private) Limited; Second Respondent: Balwearie Holdings (Private) Limited
- Court
- Supreme Court of Zimbabwe
- Jurisdiction
- Zimbabwe
- Case Number
- 22 of 2022
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed with costs
- Legal Topics
- Striking Out Applications, Company Dissolution, Interdicts, Judgments in Rem
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Ezekiel Chinoingira
Appellant
Sabre Services (Private) Limited
First Respondent
Balwearie Holdings (Private) Limited
Second Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the High Court erred in striking the urgent application off the roll
- 2 Whether proceedings against a dissolved company are competent
Ratio Decidendi
The appeal was dismissed because the first respondent company had been dissolved by a prior court order, rendering it non-existent and incapable of being sued. The High Court was correct to strike the application off the roll.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed with costs
Orders
- The appeal is dismissed with costs
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Judgment No: 22/22 Case No: SC 329/21 DISTRIBUTABLE (19) EX-TEMPORE EZEKIEL CHINOINGIRA v (1) SABRE SERVICES (PRIVATE) LIMITED (2) BALWEARIE HOLDINGS (PRIVATE) LIMITED [Company Number 45/77] SUPREME COURT OF ZIMBABWE BHUNU JA, CHIWESHE JA & MWAYERA JA 18 NOVEMBER 2021 No appearance for the appellant T. Magwaliba, for the first respondent. No appearance for the second respondent. BHUNU JA: 1. At the conclusion of submissions by counsel, the Court delivered a unanimous ex- tempore judgment. Counsel for the first respondent has now requested written reasons for the ex-tempore judgment. 2. It was couched as follows: “We hereby present the unanimous decision of the court. (a) This is an appeal against the whole judgment of the High Court (the court a quo), in which it struck off the roll an urgent application seeking to interdict the respondent from evicting the appellant from a certain farm known as the Remainder of West Hay Sabona Bon without a court order. (b) The court a quo in striking the matter off the roll upheld the point in limine raised by the second respondent to the effect that the appellant sued a non- existent entity namely Balware Holdings (Pvt) Ltd as the first respondent. Judgment No: 22/22 Case No: SC 329/21 (c) (d) It is common cause that on 8 July 2020 the court a quo dissolved the first respondent as a company under case number HC 2860/20. The order is still extant. It is trite that the order is binding on the parties and the world at large it being a judgment in rem, as submitted by Mr Magwaliba. We accordingly find that there is no merit in this appeal. Costs follow the result. (e) In the final analysis it is ordered that the appeal be and is hereby dismissed with costs.” CHIWESHE JA I agree MWAYERA JA I agree W. O. M. Simango & Associates, respondent’s legal practitioners