{"issue_text":"Whether the first respondent validly served the applicant in HC 3647/17","issue_type":"procedural","dispositive":"no","related_facts":"Default judgment granted on 22 November 2017, supplementary affidavit claimed service"}
{"issue_text":"Whether the default judgment in HC 3647/17 was fraudulently obtained","issue_type":"mixed","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"First respondent convicted of perjury, false affidavit used for service"}
{"issue_text":"Whether the first respondent's claims under the agreement had prescribed","issue_type":"law","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Agreement concluded 2010-02-13, HC 1495/13 filed 2013-02-20"}
{"issue_text":"Whether the agreement was cancelled by the first respondent","issue_type":"fact","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Affidavit dated 2 May 2019 cancelling agreement"}
{"issue_text":"Whether the applicant is entitled to eviction of the first respondent","issue_type":"mixed","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Applicant is registered owner, first respondent has no lawful right to occupy"}
This summary was generated by AI. Use Zalari to read the full judgment.
background
Facts of the Case
Background
The applicant sought declaratory relief concerning a property dispute where the first respondent had obtained a fraudulent default judgment, and claimed rights under an agreement of sale that had been cancelled and prescribed. The applicant, as registered owner, sought eviction of the first respondent from the property.
Read the full judgment, get AI analysis, and find related cases