Simalu Mining (Pvt) Ltd & Ors v Sibanda & 13 Ors (HB 47 of 2020; HC 325 of 2020) [2020] ZWBHC 47 (12 March 2020)

Simalu Mining (Pvt) Ltd & Ors v Sibanda & 13 Ors (HB 47 of 2020; HC 325 of 2020) [2020] ZWBHC 47 (12 March 2020)

The application is dismissed because there are material disputes of fact that cannot be resolved on affidavit, the relief sought is academic as the order has already been executed, and the applicants have not taken steps to set down the rescission application. The procedure chosen is inappropriate for the nature of the dispute.

Citation
[2020] ZWBHC 47
Parties
Applicant: Simalu Mining (Pvt) Ltd; Applicant: 2nd Applicant; Applicant: 3rd Applicant; Applicant: 4th Applicant; Applicant: 5th Applicant; Respondent: Zibon Sibanda; Respondent: 2nd Respondent; Respondent: 3rd Respondent; Respondent: 4th Respondent; Respondent: 5th Respondent; Respondent: 6th Respondent; Respondent: 7th Respondent; Respondent: 8th Respondent; Respondent: 9th Respondent; Respondent: 10th Respondent; Respondent: 11th Respondent; Respondent: 12th Respondent; Respondent: 13th Respondent
Court
Bulawayo High Court
Jurisdiction
Zimbabwe
Judgment Date
12 March 2020
Case Number
HB 47 of 2020 ; HC 325 of 2020
Procedural Posture
Urgent Chamber Application / Ruling on Preliminary Objections and Merits
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Urgent Applications, Interdicts, Rescission of Judgment, Material Dispute of Facts
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Mining Law Urgent Applications Interdicts Rescission of Judgment Material Dispute of Facts

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Simalu Mining (Pvt) Ltd

Applicant

2nd Applicant

Applicant

3rd Applicant

Applicant

4th Applicant

Applicant

5th Applicant

Applicant

Zibon Sibanda

Respondent

2nd Respondent

Respondent

3rd Respondent

Respondent

4th Respondent

Respondent

5th Respondent

Respondent

6th Respondent

Respondent

7th Respondent

Respondent

8th Respondent

Respondent

9th Respondent

Respondent

10th Respondent

Respondent

11th Respondent

Respondent

12th Respondent

Respondent

13th Respondent

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Chamber Application / Ruling on Preliminary Objections and Merits

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the urgent chamber application is properly before the court
  2. 2 Whether the application is fatally defective for wrong form or defective certificate of urgency
  3. 3 Whether the matter has been overtaken by events due to execution of the order

Ratio Decidendi

The application is dismissed because there are material disputes of fact that cannot be resolved on affidavit, the relief sought is academic as the order has already been executed, and the applicants have not taken steps to set down the rescission application. The procedure chosen is inappropriate for the nature of the dispute.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Application dismissed with costs