Mlazie and Ors v Mkandla and Ors (HB 104 of 2007) [2007] ZWBHC 104 (26 September 2007)

Mlazie and Ors v Mkandla and Ors (HB 104 of 2007) [2007] ZWBHC 104 (26 September 2007)

The application was dismissed because the urgency was self-created; applicants were aware of the impending eviction and deprivation of access for years and failed to act promptly, thus failing the test of urgency required for urgent chamber applications.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2007] ZWBHC 104
Parties
Applicant: Thomas Mlazie; Applicant: Romana Tshuma; Applicant: Angelbeta Ndlovu; Applicant: Charles Ncube; Applicant: Sithabile Ncube; Applicant: Jostina Tshuma; Respondent: Fr Marko Mkandla; Respondent: Gift F Moyo; Respondent: The Roman Catholic Archdiocese – Bulawayo; Respondent: AOB Farm Board
Court
Bulawayo High Court
Jurisdiction
Zimbabwe
Judgment Date
26 September 2007
Case Number
HB 104 of 2007
Procedural Posture
Urgent Chamber Application / Ruling on Urgency
Outcome
application dismissed
Legal Topics
Urgency in Applications, Interim Relief, Eviction, Access to Land and Water
Source Language
english
Civil Procedure Urgency in Applications Interim Relief Eviction Access to Land and Water

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Thomas Mlazie

Applicant

Romana Tshuma

Applicant

Angelbeta Ndlovu

Applicant

Charles Ncube

Applicant

Sithabile Ncube

Applicant

Jostina Tshuma

Applicant

Fr Marko Mkandla

Respondent

Gift F Moyo

Respondent

The Roman Catholic Archdiocese – Bulawayo

Respondent

AOB Farm Board

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Chamber Application / Ruling on Urgency

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application qualifies as urgent under the High Court Rules
  2. 2 Whether interim relief should be granted to prevent eviction and allow access to water and grazing land

Ratio Decidendi

The application was dismissed because the urgency was self-created; applicants were aware of the impending eviction and deprivation of access for years and failed to act promptly, thus failing the test of urgency required for urgent chamber applications.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • Application for interim relief is dismissed.