Sidat and 17 Others v Lambat and 6 Others (50 of 2024) [2024] ZWHHC 22 (1 February 2024)

Sidat and 17 Others v Lambat and 6 Others (50 of 2024) [2024] ZWHHC 22 (1 February 2024)

The second to eighteenth applicants lacked valid board resolutions authorizing litigation and were struck off. The first applicant failed to prove threats or undue demands by the first and third respondents. The police acted lawfully under warrants. No declaratory or consequential relief could be granted. Costs follow the event.

Citation
[2024] ZWHHC 22
Parties
Applicant: Latifa Sidat; Applicant: Zeedan Enterprises (Private) Limited; Applicant: Elaf Investments (Private) Limited; Applicant: Jeleleen Investments (Private) Limited; Applicant: Askreg Enterprises (Private) Limited; Applicant: Wildaw Enterprises (Private) Limited; Applicant: Yahan Enterprises (Private) Limited; Applicant: Larchwood Investments (Private) Limited; Applicant: Trenaz Investments (Private) Limited; Applicant: Honey Bags Investments (Private) Limited; Applicant: Megeara Investments (Private) Limited; Applicant: Hakatea Investments (Private) Limited; Applicant: Tostall Investments (Private) Limited; Applicant: Maniza Investments (Private) Limited; Applicant: Neshro Investments (Private) Limited; Applicant: Deedles Investments (Private) Limited; Applicant: Kemler Investments (Private) Limited; Applicant: Sibkey Investments (Private) Limited; Respondent: Nazirf Lambat; Respondent: Fatima Ahmed Dalal N. O; Respondent: Sergeant Tichainzana Mukoto; Respondent: The Commissioner-General of Police; Respondent: Master of the High Court; Respondent: Registrar of Deeds; Respondent: Office for the Registration of Companies and Other Business Entities
Court
Harare High Court
Jurisdiction
Zimbabwe
Judgment Date
1 February 2024
Case Number
50 of 2024
Procedural Posture
Urgent Chamber Application / Ruling on Merits and Preliminary Objections
Outcome
Application dismissed as against first respondent; struck off as against second to eighteenth applicants; costs to applicants on party and party scale.
Legal Topics
Locus Standi, Urgency, Declaratory Orders, Estate Administration, Company Board Resolutions, Police Investigations
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Succession Law Company Law Locus Standi Urgency Declaratory Orders Estate Administration Company Board Resolutions +1 more

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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Latifa Sidat

Applicant

Zeedan Enterprises (Private) Limited

Applicant

Elaf Investments (Private) Limited

Applicant

Jeleleen Investments (Private) Limited

Applicant

Askreg Enterprises (Private) Limited

Applicant

Wildaw Enterprises (Private) Limited

Applicant

Yahan Enterprises (Private) Limited

Applicant

Larchwood Investments (Private) Limited

Applicant

Trenaz Investments (Private) Limited

Applicant

Honey Bags Investments (Private) Limited

Applicant

Megeara Investments (Private) Limited

Applicant

Hakatea Investments (Private) Limited

Applicant

Tostall Investments (Private) Limited

Applicant

Maniza Investments (Private) Limited

Applicant

Neshro Investments (Private) Limited

Applicant

Deedles Investments (Private) Limited

Applicant

Kemler Investments (Private) Limited

Applicant

Sibkey Investments (Private) Limited

Applicant

Nazirf Lambat

Respondent

Fatima Ahmed Dalal N. O

Respondent

Sergeant Tichainzana Mukoto

Respondent

The Commissioner-General of Police

Respondent

Master of the High Court

Respondent

Registrar of Deeds

Respondent

Office for the Registration of Companies and Other Business Entities

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Chamber Application / Ruling on Merits and Preliminary Objections

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants have locus standi to bring the application
  2. 2 Whether the application is urgent
  3. 3 Whether the first respondent has rights in the estate or company properties

Ratio Decidendi

The second to eighteenth applicants lacked valid board resolutions authorizing litigation and were struck off. The first applicant failed to prove threats or undue demands by the first and third respondents. The police acted lawfully under warrants. No declaratory or consequential relief could be granted. Costs follow the event.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed as against first respondent; struck off as against second to eighteenth applicants; costs to applicants on party and party scale.

Orders

  • Application by second to eighteenth applicants struck off the roll with costs.
  • Application by first applicant dismissed with costs.