Ndhlovu v Mukungurutse (HB 19 of 2006) [2006] ZWBHC 19 (15 March 2006)
The applicant adopted the wrong procedure by seeking rescission under Rule 449 instead of applying for anticipation or discharge of the provisional order; no sufficient grounds were shown for rescission, and damages remain an adequate remedy.
- Citation
- [2006] ZWBHC 19
- Parties
- Applicant: Sheillar Ndhlovu; Respondent: Dickson Mukungurutse
- Court
- Bulawayo High Court
- Jurisdiction
- Zimbabwe
- Judgment Date
- 15 March 2006
- Case Number
- HB 19 of 2006
- Procedural Posture
- Urgent Chamber Application / Judgment on Application to Set Aside Provisional Order
- Outcome
- Application dismissed with costs.
- Legal Topics
- Rescission of Judgment, Mining Claim Boundary Dispute, Functus Officio, Rule 449 Procedure
- Source Language
- English
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Sheillar Ndhlovu
Applicant
Dickson Mukungurutse
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Urgent Chamber Application / Judgment on Application to Set Aside Provisional Order
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to have the provisional order in HC 1585/05 set aside under Rule 449
- 2 Whether the correct procedure was adopted by the applicant in challenging the provisional order
- 3 Whether damages are an adequate remedy for the applicant
Ratio Decidendi
The applicant adopted the wrong procedure by seeking rescission under Rule 449 instead of applying for anticipation or discharge of the provisional order; no sufficient grounds were shown for rescission, and damages remain an adequate remedy.
Court Disposition
Application dismissed with costs.
Orders
- Application dismissed with costs.
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