{"issue_text":"Whether the matter was urgent given the 24-hour removal threat","issue_type":"procedural","dispositive":"no","related_facts":"24-hour notice issued 22 March 2017"}
{"issue_text":"Whether the applicant had established a prima facie right to protection","issue_type":"mixed","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Lease renewal exercised, continued payments, no response to renewal"}
{"issue_text":"Whether the respondent could act extra-judicially under by-laws","issue_type":"law","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"By-laws allow removal, but contract exists"}
This summary was generated by AI. Use Zalari to read the full judgment.
background
Facts of the Case
Background
The applicant, an advertising company, sought an urgent interdict to prevent the respondent (City of Harare) from removing its advertising billboards. The parties had a 10-year lease agreement from 2006-2016, with the applicant exercising a renewal option in 2015. The city claimed the lease was not renewable and demanded removal within 24 hours.
Read the full judgment, get AI analysis, and find related cases