{"issue_text":"Whether applicant established a prima facie right to the property","issue_type":"mixed","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"2010 allocation letter, payment contributions, Ministerial Committee recommendations"}
{"issue_text":"Whether applicant would suffer irreparable harm without interdict","issue_type":"law","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Construction activity, potential loss of ownership rights"}
{"issue_text":"Whether balance of convenience favours granting interdict","issue_type":"law","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Urgency of application, pending declaratur application"}
This summary was generated by AI. Use Zalari to read the full judgment.
background
Facts of the Case
Background
The applicant sought an urgent interim interdict to stop construction on property she claims was allocated to her in 2010 under the Access to Home Ownership Scheme. The first and second respondents, alleged to be second allottees, began construction work on the property in February 2021.
Read the full judgment, get AI analysis, and find related cases