Karimazondo and Anor v Chiumdasama and Ors (HC 153 of 2003) [2004] ZWBHC 115 (1 September 2004)

Karimazondo and Anor v Chiumdasama and Ors (HC 153 of 2003) [2004] ZWBHC 115 (1 September 2004)

The court found that a valid agreement of sale existed between the applicants and the first respondent, and that the applicants had established a clear right to the property. The respondents' attempt to sell the property to another party infringed this right. The requirements for an interlocutory interdict were met,...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2004] ZWBHC 115
Parties
Applicant: Staben Karimazondo; Applicant: Perpetua Karimazondo; Respondent: Surendra Chiumdasama; Respondent: Ashokumar Moorjee Anand; Respondent: Registrar of Deeds; Respondent: Deputy Sheriff
Court
Bulawayo High Court
Jurisdiction
Zimbabwe
Judgment Date
1 September 2004
Case Number
HC 153 of 2003
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Application for Provisional Order
Outcome
provisional order granted
Legal Topics
Interlocutory Interdict, Agreement of Sale, Specific Performance, Transfer of Immovable Property
Source Language
english
Contract Law Property Law Interlocutory Interdict Agreement of Sale Specific Performance Transfer of Immovable Property

Source-derived case record

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

Parties

Staben Karimazondo

Applicant

Perpetua Karimazondo

Applicant

Surendra Chiumdasama

Respondent

Ashokumar Moorjee Anand

Respondent

Registrar of Deeds

Respondent

Deputy Sheriff

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Application for Provisional Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a valid agreement of sale existed between the applicants and the first respondent
  2. 2 Whether the applicants are entitled to an interlocutory interdict to prevent transfer of the property to third parties

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that a valid agreement of sale existed between the applicants and the first respondent, and that the applicants had established a clear right to the property. The respondents' attempt to sell the property to another party infringed this right. The requirements for an interlocutory interdict were met, and the balance of convenience favoured the applicants, justifying the grant of the provisional order.

Court Disposition

provisional order granted

Orders

  • First and second respondents interdicted from carrying out any evaluation of the disputed property.
  • Third respondent interdicted from registering transfer of the property to any person other than the applicants.