africa.lawBeta
SearchAsk AICollectionsJudgesCompareMemo
africa.law

Free access to African legal information. Legislation, case law, and regulatory documents from across the continent.

Resources

  • Legislation
  • Gazettes
  • Jurisdictions

Developers

  • API Documentation
  • Bulk Downloads
  • Data Sources
  • GitHub

Company

  • About
  • Contact
  • Terms of Use
  • Privacy Policy

Jurisdictions

  • Ghana
  • Kenya
  • Nigeria
  • South Africa
  • Tanzania
  • Uganda

© 2026 africa.law by Bhala. Open legal information for Africa.

Aggregating legal information from official government publications and public legal databases across the continent.

Back to search
Case Law[2021] ZWSC 22Zimbabwe

Chinoingira v Sabre Services (Private) Limited and Another (22 of 2022) [2021] ZWSC 22 (18 November 2021)

Supreme Court of Zimbabwe
18 November 2021
Home J, Journals J, Bhunu JA, Mwayera JA

Headnotes

Academic papers

Judgment

Judgment No: 22/22 Case No: SC 329/21 2 DISTRIBUTABLE (19) EX-TEMPORE EZEKIEL CHINOINGIRA v SABRE SERVICES (PRIVATE) LIMITED (2) BALWEARIE HOLDINGS (PRIVATE) LIMITED [Company Number 45/77] SUPREME COURT OF ZIMBABWE BHUNU JA, CHIWESHE JA & MWAYERA JA 18 NOVEMBER 2021 No appearance for the appellant T. Magwaliba, for the first respondent. No appearance for the second respondent. BHUNU JA: 1. At the conclusion of submissions by counsel, the Court delivered a unanimous ex-tempore judgment. Counsel for the first respondent has now requested written reasons for the ex-tempore judgment. 2. It was couched as follows: “We hereby present the unanimous decision of the court. This is an appeal against the whole judgment of the High Court (the court a quo), in which it struck off the roll an urgent application seeking to interdict the respondent from evicting the appellant from a certain farm known as the Remainder of West Hay Sabona Bon without a court order. (b) The court a quo in striking the matter off the roll upheld the point in limine raised by the second respondent to the effect that the appellant sued a non-existent entity namely Balware Holdings (Pvt) Ltd as the first respondent. (c) It is common cause that on 8 July 2020 the court a quo dissolved the first respondent as a company under case number HC 2860/20. The order is still extant. (d) It is trite that the order is binding on the parties and the world at large it being a judgment in rem, as submitted by Mr Magwaliba. We accordingly find that there is no merit in this appeal. Costs follow the result. (e) In the final analysis it is ordered that the appeal be and is hereby dismissed with costs.” CHIWESHE JA I agree MWAYERA JA I agree W.O.M. Simango & Associates, respondent’s legal practitioners Judgment No: 22/22 Case No: SC 329/21 2 Judgment No: 22/22 Case No: SC 329/21 2 Judgment No: 22/22 Case No: SC 329/21 2 DISTRIBUTABLE (19) EX-TEMPORE EZEKIEL CHINOINGIRA v SABRE SERVICES (PRIVATE) LIMITED (2) BALWEARIE HOLDINGS (PRIVATE) LIMITED [Company Number 45/77] SUPREME COURT OF ZIMBABWE BHUNU JA, CHIWESHE JA & MWAYERA JA 18 NOVEMBER 2021 No appearance for the appellant T. Magwaliba, for the first respondent. No appearance for the second respondent. BHUNU JA: 1. At the conclusion of submissions by counsel, the Court delivered a unanimous ex-tempore judgment. Counsel for the first respondent has now requested written reasons for the ex-tempore judgment. 2. It was couched as follows: “We hereby present the unanimous decision of the court. This is an appeal against the whole judgment of the High Court (the court a quo), in which it struck off the roll an urgent application seeking to interdict the respondent from evicting the appellant from a certain farm known as the Remainder of West Hay Sabona Bon without a court order. (b) The court a quo in striking the matter off the roll upheld the point in limine raised by the second respondent to the effect that the appellant sued a non-existent entity namely Balware Holdings (Pvt) Ltd as the first respondent. (c) It is common cause that on 8 July 2020 the court a quo dissolved the first respondent as a company under case number HC 2860/20. The order is still extant. (d) It is trite that the order is binding on the parties and the world at large it being a judgment in rem, as submitted by Mr Magwaliba. We accordingly find that there is no merit in this appeal. Costs follow the result. (e) In the final analysis it is ordered that the appeal be and is hereby dismissed with costs.” CHIWESHE JA I agree MWAYERA JA I agree W.O.M. Simango & Associates, respondent’s legal practitioners

Similar Cases

Mauritius and Another v Versapak Holdings (Private) Limited and Another (2 of 2022) [2022] ZWSC 2 (18 January 2022)
[2022] ZWSC 2Supreme Court of Zimbabwe80% similar
Prosecutor General of Zimbabwe v Intratek Zimbabwe (Private) Limited & Anor (Civil Appeal SC 422 of 2019; SC 67 of 2020) [2020] ZWSC 67 (8 June 2020)
[2020] ZWSC 67Supreme Court of Zimbabwe79% similar
Riozim (Private) Limited v Falcon Resources (Private) Limited and Another (28 of 2022) [2020] ZWSC 28 (16 November 2020)
[2020] ZWSC 28Supreme Court of Zimbabwe78% similar
Smit Investment Holdings SA (Proprietary) Limited & Another v The Sheriff of Zimbabwe & Another (Civil Appeal SC 780 of 2017; SC 33 of 2018) [2018] ZWSC 33 (19 June 2018)
[2018] ZWSC 33Supreme Court of Zimbabwe78% similar
ZESA Enterprises (Pvt) Ltd. v Stevawo (Civil Appeal SC 147 of 2015; SC 29 of 2017) [2017] ZWSC 29 (30 March 2017)
[2017] ZWSC 29Supreme Court of Zimbabwe78% similar

Discussion