Meikles Limited v Widefree Investments (Private) Limited t/a Core Solutions and Sheriff of Zimbabwe and Stanbic Bank Limited and Registrar of Companies
Civil ProcedureExecution of judgmentsBanking lawCompany law
Keywords
Bank account attachmentShare attachmentGarnishee orderExecution proceedingsIncorporeal property
Tags
Execution of judgmentAttachment of bank accountsAttachment of sharesGarnishee orderIncorporeal property
legislation
Statutes Cited
High Court Rules, 1971
High Court Rules, 1971
ai analysis
Case Summary
Key Issues
{"issue_text":"Whether a bank account attachment requires a prior garnishee order","issue_type":"procedural","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Bank account 9140000213879 was attached without prior garnishee order"}
{"issue_text":"Whether the attachment of shares complied with Order 40 r 343(4) requirements","issue_type":"procedural","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Shares were attached on 29 August 2018"}
{"issue_text":"Whether the applicant has locus standi to challenge attachment of shares belonging to third parties","issue_type":"procedural","dispositive":"no","related_facts":"Applicant alleged some attached shares belong to third parties"}
This summary was generated by AI. Use Zalari to read the full judgment.
background
Facts of the Case
Background
The applicant sought to suspend attachments of its bank account and shares made by the Sheriff in execution of a judgment registering an arbitral award. The applicant argued the bank account attachment was unlawful without a garnishee order and the share attachment failed to comply with High Court Rules requirements.
Read the full judgment, get AI analysis, and find related cases