Nyathi & Ors v Ncube & Ors (HB 68 of 2017; HC 2638 of 2016; XREF HC 2559 of 2016; XREF HC 822 of 2016) [2017] ZWBHC 68 (23 March 2017)
Applicants were barred for failure to file heads of argument within the prescribed period and did not seek upliftment of the bar. No basis existed for postponement. The provisional order was discharged and the application dismissed with costs against the applicants.
- Citation
- [2017] ZWBHC 68
- Parties
- Applicant: Reverend Clement Nyathi; Applicant: Reverend Joseph Matongo; Applicant: Reverend Able Mephulangogaja; Applicant: Reverend Phibion T Manyowa; Applicant: The Apostolic Faith Mission of Africa; Respondent: Elliot Ncube; Respondent: Estate Late Tony Tshuma (Represented by Sylivanos Ncube as Executrix Dative); Respondent: The Chief Registrar; Respondent: The Sheriff of Zimbabwe; Respondent: The Additional Sheriff of Zimbabwe
- Court
- Bulawayo High Court
- Jurisdiction
- Zimbabwe
- Judgment Date
- 23 March 2017
- Case Number
- HB 68 of 2017 ; HC 2638 of 2016 ; XREF HC 2559 of 2016 ; XREF HC 822 of 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Opposed Application / Hearing of Return Date for Confirmation or Discharge of Provisional Order
- Outcome
- Application dismissed, provisional order discharged, costs awarded against applicants.
- Legal Topics
- Stay of Execution, Rescission of Judgment, Costs De Bonis Propriis, Postponement of Proceedings, Bar for Failure to File Heads of Argument
- Source Language
- English
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Reverend Clement Nyathi
Applicant
Reverend Joseph Matongo
Applicant
Reverend Able Mephulangogaja
Applicant
Reverend Phibion T Manyowa
Applicant
The Apostolic Faith Mission of Africa
Applicant
Elliot Ncube
Respondent
Estate Late Tony Tshuma (Represented by Sylivanos Ncube as Executrix Dative)
Respondent
The Chief Registrar
Respondent
The Sheriff of Zimbabwe
Respondent
The Additional Sheriff of Zimbabwe
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Opposed Application / Hearing of Return Date for Confirmation or Discharge of Provisional Order
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicants were entitled to a postponement of the hearing
- 2 Whether the applicants were properly before the court given the bar for failure to file heads of argument
- 3 Whether the provisional order staying execution should be confirmed or discharged
Ratio Decidendi
Applicants were barred for failure to file heads of argument within the prescribed period and did not seek upliftment of the bar. No basis existed for postponement. The provisional order was discharged and the application dismissed with costs against the applicants.
Court Disposition
Application dismissed, provisional order discharged, costs awarded against applicants.
Orders
- Application for postponement dismissed.
- Provisional order staying execution discharged.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment