Tembo v PCJ Motorways (HC 8846 of 2016; HH 224 of 2017) [2017] ZWHHC 224 (3 April 2017)

Tembo v PCJ Motorways (HC 8846 of 2016; HH 224 of 2017) [2017] ZWHHC 224 (3 April 2017)

The application was dismissed because the respondent’s buses are not permanently located in Zimbabwe and cannot be said to be firmly within the jurisdiction or capable of attachment at any one time. The court found that granting the order would not ensure effectiveness of any judgment, as the property may not be available for enforcement.

Citation
[2017] ZWHHC 224
Parties
Applicant: Memory Tembo; Respondent: PCJ Motorways
Court
Harare High Court
Jurisdiction
Zimbabwe
Judgment Date
3 April 2017
Case Number
HC 8846 of 2016 ; HH 224 of 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Ruling on Opposed Application to Attach Property to Found Jurisdiction
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Attachment to Found Jurisdiction, Peregrinus Defendant, Jurisdiction, Vicarious Liability, Delict
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Attachment to Found Jurisdiction Peregrinus Defendant Jurisdiction Vicarious Liability Delict

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Memory Tembo

Applicant

PCJ Motorways

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Ruling on Opposed Application to Attach Property to Found Jurisdiction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court should order attachment of a peregrine respondent’s property to found jurisdiction
  2. 2 Whether the respondent has property within the jurisdiction capable of attachment
  3. 3 Whether the applicant has established a prima facie cause of action

Ratio Decidendi

The application was dismissed because the respondent’s buses are not permanently located in Zimbabwe and cannot be said to be firmly within the jurisdiction or capable of attachment at any one time. The court found that granting the order would not ensure effectiveness of any judgment, as the property may not be available for enforcement.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • Each party is to bear its own costs.