Law Portal
Zimbabwe

Welcome To Law Portal

Welcome, Guest!
[Help?]

HH480-21 - EZEKIEL CHINOINGIRA vs BALWEARE HOLDINGS (PVT) LTD and SABRE SERVICES (PVT) LTD

  • View Judgment By Categories
  • View Full Judgment

View Appeal


Procedural Law-viz urgent chamber application re urgency iro property disputes.
Procedural Law-viz interim interdict re relief overriding an extant order of court.
Procedural Law-viz rules of evidence re documentary evidence iro the best evidence rule.
Company Law-viz legal personality re dissolution of a company.
Procedural Law-viz citation re legal status of litigating parties.
Procedural Law-viz pleadings re nullity of proceedings.
Company Law-viz company secretarial services.
Procedural Law-viz final orders re procedural irregularities iro discretion of the court to strike a matter from the roll.
Procedural Law-viz provisional order re interim interdict pending confirmation proceedings.

Urgency re: Land Reform, Spoliation or Mandament van Spolie Proceedings and Property Disputes


This is an urgent chamber application in which the interim relief sought is that the first respondent be barred and interdicted from evicting the applicant from a certain farm known as “the remainder of Westhey, Sabonabon Estate, Kadoma arbitrarily without a court order.

As a final order, it is prayed that the provisional order be confirmed with the respondents paying costs.

Interim Interdict Pendente Confirmation or Discharge Proceedings re: Approach, Return Date and the Prima Facie Concept


This is an urgent chamber application in which the interim relief sought is that the first respondent be barred and interdicted from evicting the applicant from a certain farm known as “the remainder of Westhey, Sabonabon Estate, Kadoma arbitrarily without a court order.

As a final order, it is prayed that the provisional order be confirmed with the respondents paying costs.

The applicant dragged to court an entity called Balwearie Holdings (Private) Limited whose particulars were provided as a company registered under company number 45/77 as first respondent, and the second respondent is Sabre Services (Private) Limited, a company which is cited in its capacity as the first respondent's company secretary.

Points in limine were taken by the second respondent:

(i) The first, which was backed by an order under case number HC2860/20, which is extant, clearly showed that the first respondent was held to be dissolved by that court order.

The effect of dissolution of a company is that its legal personality comes to an end. It ceases to exist. It cannot sue or be sued: see Bowman NO v Sacks and Ors 1986 (4) SA 459 (W)…,.

This means there is no legal persona responding to the first respondent.

As the second respondent was sued as secretary of a non-existent entity, it too cannot be properly dragged to court.

Further, a company cannot be a secretary of another company.

Consequently, there are no respondents before me. I uphold the points in limine. The appropriate remedy is to strike off this matter with an order of costs on an ordinary scale.

Interim Interdict or Final Order re: Relief Conflicting with Statutes, Extant Court Orders & Prima Facie Lawful Conduct


This is an urgent chamber application in which the interim relief sought is that the first respondent be barred and interdicted from evicting the applicant from a certain farm known as “the remainder of Westhey, Sabonabon Estate, Kadoma arbitrarily without a court order.

As a final order, it is prayed that the provisional order be confirmed with the respondents paying costs.

The applicant dragged to court an entity called Balwearie Holdings (Private) Limited whose particulars were provided as a company registered under company number 45/77 as first respondent, and the second respondent is Sabre Services (Private) Limited, a company which is cited in its capacity as the first respondent's company secretary.

Points in limine were taken by the second respondent:

(i) The first, which was backed by an order under case number HC2860/20, which is extant, clearly showed that the first respondent was held to be dissolved by that court order.

The effect of dissolution of a company is that its legal personality comes to an end. It ceases to exist. It cannot sue or be sued: see Bowman NO v Sacks and Ors 1986 (4) SA 459 (W)…,.

This means there is no legal persona responding to the first respondent.

As the second respondent was sued as secretary of a non-existent entity, it too cannot be properly dragged to court.

Further, a company cannot be a secretary of another company.

Consequently, there are no respondents before me. I uphold the points in limine. The appropriate remedy is to strike off this matter with an order of costs on an ordinary scale.

Documentary Evidence, Certification, Commissioning, Authentication and the Best Evidence Rule re: Approach


This is an urgent chamber application in which the interim relief sought is that the first respondent be barred and interdicted from evicting the applicant from a certain farm known as “the remainder of Westhey, Sabonabon Estate, Kadoma arbitrarily without a court order.

As a final order, it is prayed that the provisional order be confirmed with the respondents paying costs.

The applicant dragged to court an entity called Balwearie Holdings (Private) Limited whose particulars were provided as a company registered under company number 45/77 as first respondent, and the second respondent is Sabre Services (Private) Limited, a company which is cited in its capacity as the first respondent's company secretary.

Points in limine were taken by the second respondent:

(i) The first, which was backed by an order under case number HC2860/20, which is extant, clearly showed that the first respondent was held to be dissolved by that court order.

The effect of dissolution of a company is that its legal personality comes to an end. It ceases to exist. It cannot sue or be sued: see Bowman NO v Sacks and Ors 1986 (4) SA 459 (W)…,.

This means there is no legal persona responding to the first respondent.

As the second respondent was sued as secretary of a non-existent entity, it too cannot be properly dragged to court.

Further, a company cannot be a secretary of another company.

Consequently, there are no respondents before me. I uphold the points in limine. The appropriate remedy is to strike off this matter with an order of costs on an ordinary scale.

Citation and Joinder re: Legal Status of Litigants, Name Descriptions, Trade Names and the Principle of Legal Persona


This is an urgent chamber application in which the interim relief sought is that the first respondent be barred and interdicted from evicting the applicant from a certain farm known as “the remainder of Westhey, Sabonabon Estate, Kadoma arbitrarily without a court order.

As a final order, it is prayed that the provisional order be confirmed with the respondents paying costs.

The applicant dragged to court an entity called Balwearie Holdings (Private) Limited whose particulars were provided as a company registered under company number 45/77 as first respondent, and the second respondent is Sabre Services (Private) Limited, a company which is cited in its capacity as the first respondent's company secretary.

Points in limine were taken by the second respondent:

(i) The first, which was backed by an order under case number HC2860/20, which is extant, clearly showed that the first respondent was held to be dissolved by that court order.

The effect of dissolution of a company is that its legal personality comes to an end. It ceases to exist. It cannot sue or be sued: see Bowman NO v Sacks and Ors 1986 (4) SA 459 (W)…,.

This means there is no legal persona responding to the first respondent.

As the second respondent was sued as secretary of a non-existent entity, it too cannot be properly dragged to court.

Further, a company cannot be a secretary of another company.

Consequently, there are no respondents before me. I uphold the points in limine. The appropriate remedy is to strike off this matter with an order of costs on an ordinary scale.

Citation and Joinder re: Approach, the Joinder of Necessity and Third Party Notices


This is an urgent chamber application in which the interim relief sought is that the first respondent be barred and interdicted from evicting the applicant from a certain farm known as “the remainder of Westhey, Sabonabon Estate, Kadoma arbitrarily without a court order.

As a final order, it is prayed that the provisional order be confirmed with the respondents paying costs.

The applicant dragged to court an entity called Balwearie Holdings (Private) Limited whose particulars were provided as a company registered under company number 45/77 as first respondent, and the second respondent is Sabre Services (Private) Limited, a company which is cited in its capacity as the first respondent's company secretary.

Points in limine were taken by the second respondent:

(i) The first, which was backed by an order under case number HC2860/20, which is extant, clearly showed that the first respondent was held to be dissolved by that court order.

The effect of dissolution of a company is that its legal personality comes to an end. It ceases to exist. It cannot sue or be sued: see Bowman NO v Sacks and Ors 1986 (4) SA 459 (W)…,.

This means there is no legal persona responding to the first respondent.

As the second respondent was sued as secretary of a non-existent entity, it too cannot be properly dragged to court.

Further, a company cannot be a secretary of another company.

Consequently, there are no respondents before me. I uphold the points in limine. The appropriate remedy is to strike off this matter with an order of costs on an ordinary scale.

Pleadings re: Nullity of Proceedings or Acts, Peremptory Provisions & the Doctrines of Strict and Substantial Compliance


This is an urgent chamber application in which the interim relief sought is that the first respondent be barred and interdicted from evicting the applicant from a certain farm known as “the remainder of Westhey, Sabonabon Estate, Kadoma arbitrarily without a court order.

As a final order, it is prayed that the provisional order be confirmed with the respondents paying costs.

The applicant dragged to court an entity called Balwearie Holdings (Private) Limited whose particulars were provided as a company registered under company number 45/77 as first respondent, and the second respondent is Sabre Services (Private) Limited, a company which is cited in its capacity as the first respondent's company secretary.

Points in limine were taken by the second respondent:

(i) The first, which was backed by an order under case number HC2860/20, which is extant, clearly showed that the first respondent was held to be dissolved by that court order.

The effect of dissolution of a company is that its legal personality comes to an end. It ceases to exist. It cannot sue or be sued: see Bowman NO v Sacks and Ors 1986 (4) SA 459 (W)…,.

This means there is no legal persona responding to the first respondent.

As the second respondent was sued as secretary of a non-existent entity, it too cannot be properly dragged to court.

Further, a company cannot be a secretary of another company.

Consequently, there are no respondents before me. I uphold the points in limine. The appropriate remedy is to strike off this matter with an order of costs on an ordinary scale.

Final Orders re: Procedural Irregularities & Discretion of Court to Condone, Interfere, Dismiss, Strike, Remit or Set Aside


This is an urgent chamber application in which the interim relief sought is that the first respondent be barred and interdicted from evicting the applicant from a certain farm known as “the remainder of Westhey, Sabonabon Estate, Kadoma arbitrarily without a court order.

As a final order, it is prayed that the provisional order be confirmed with the respondents paying costs.

The applicant dragged to court an entity called Balwearie Holdings (Private) Limited whose particulars were provided as a company registered under company number 45/77 as first respondent, and the second respondent is Sabre Services (Private) Limited, a company which is cited in its capacity as the first respondent's company secretary.

Points in limine were taken by the second respondent:

(i) The first, which was backed by an order under case number HC2860/20, which is extant, clearly showed that the first respondent was held to be dissolved by that court order.

The effect of dissolution of a company is that its legal personality comes to an end. It ceases to exist. It cannot sue or be sued: see Bowman NO v Sacks and Ors 1986 (4) SA 459 (W)…,.

This means there is no legal persona responding to the first respondent.

As the second respondent was sued as secretary of a non-existent entity, it too cannot be properly dragged to court.

Further, a company cannot be a secretary of another company.

Consequently, there are no respondents before me. I uphold the points in limine. The appropriate remedy is to strike off this matter with an order of costs on an ordinary scale.

Legal Personality re: Dissolution of a Company, De-registered and Unregistered Companies


This is an urgent chamber application in which the interim relief sought is that the first respondent be barred and interdicted from evicting the applicant from a certain farm known as “the remainder of Westhey, Sabonabon Estate, Kadoma arbitrarily without a court order.

As a final order, it is prayed that the provisional order be confirmed with the respondents paying costs.

The applicant dragged to court an entity called Balwearie Holdings (Private) Limited whose particulars were provided as a company registered under company number 45/77 as first respondent, and the second respondent is Sabre Services (Private) Limited, a company which is cited in its capacity as the first respondent's company secretary.

Points in limine were taken by the second respondent:

(i) The first, which was backed by an order under case number HC2860/20, which is extant, clearly showed that the first respondent was held to be dissolved by that court order.

The effect of dissolution of a company is that its legal personality comes to an end. It ceases to exist. It cannot sue or be sued: see Bowman NO v Sacks and Ors 1986 (4) SA 459 (W)…,.

This means there is no legal persona responding to the first respondent.

As the second respondent was sued as secretary of a non-existent entity, it too cannot be properly dragged to court.

Further, a company cannot be a secretary of another company.

Consequently, there are no respondents before me. I uphold the points in limine. The appropriate remedy is to strike off this matter with an order of costs on an ordinary scale.

Company Secretarial Services


This is an urgent chamber application in which the interim relief sought is that the first respondent be barred and interdicted from evicting the applicant from a certain farm known as “the remainder of Westhey, Sabonabon Estate, Kadoma arbitrarily without a court order.

As a final order, it is prayed that the provisional order be confirmed with the respondents paying costs.

The applicant dragged to court an entity called Balwearie Holdings (Private) Limited whose particulars were provided as a company registered under company number 45/77 as first respondent, and the second respondent is Sabre Services (Private) Limited, a company which is cited in its capacity as the first respondent's company secretary.

Points in limine were taken by the second respondent:

(i) The first, which was backed by an order under case number HC2860/20, which is extant, clearly showed that the first respondent was held to be dissolved by that court order.

The effect of dissolution of a company is that its legal personality comes to an end. It ceases to exist. It cannot sue or be sued: see Bowman NO v Sacks and Ors 1986 (4) SA 459 (W)…,.

This means there is no legal persona responding to the first respondent.

As the second respondent was sued as secretary of a non-existent entity, it too cannot be properly dragged to court.

Further, a company cannot be a secretary of another company.

Consequently, there are no respondents before me. I uphold the points in limine. The appropriate remedy is to strike off this matter with an order of costs on an ordinary scale.

Urgent Chamber Application

MUCHAWA J: This is an urgent chamber application in which the interim relief sought is that 1st respondent be barred and interdicted from evicting the applicant from a certain farm known as “the remainder of Westhey, Sabonabon Estate, Kadoma arbitrarily without a court order.

As a final order, it is prayed that the provisional order be confirmed with respondents paying costs.

The applicant dragged to court, an entity called Balwearie Holdings Private Limited whose particulars were provided as a company registered under company number 45/77 as first respondent and second respondent is Sabre Services Private Limited, a company which is cited in its capacity as the first respondent's company secretary.

Points in limine were taken by the second respondent.

(i) The first, which was backed by an order under case number HC2860/20 which is extant, clearly showed that the 1st respondent was held to be dissolved by that court order.

The effect of dissolution of a company is that its legal personality comes to an end. It ceases to exist. It cannot sue or be sued. See Bowman NO v Sacks and Ors 1986 (4) SA 459 (W) @463G-H. This means there is no legal persona responding to the first respondent.

As second respondent was sued as secretary of a nonexistent entity, it too cannot be properly dragged to court.

Further, a company cannot be a secretary of another company.

Consequently, there are no respondents before me. I uphold the points in limine. The appropriate remedy is to strike off this matter with an order of costs on an ordinary scale.



Zimudzi & Partners, applicant's legal practitioners

Back Main menu

Categories

Back to top