Back to top
Zalari has raised $2 million USD in a founding round led by Nyamaropa Technologies
Harare High Court

Taiyuan Sanxing Company Limited v Philcool Investments (Private) Limited & 8 Ors

HH 32-23

Case Details

Court
Harare High Court
Date
19 January 2023
Citation
HH 32-23
Neutral Citation
[2023] ZWHH 32
Outcome
unknown
Case Type
Urgent Application

Bench

Presiding
Deme J
Full Bench
Deme J
Areas of Law
Civil ProcedureSecurity for CostsPeregrinus Requirements
Keywords
peregrinussecurity for costsurgent applicationinterdictcontempt of courtcoke oven battery plant
Tags
urgent chamber applicationsecurity for costsperegrinusinterdictcontempt of court
legislation
Statutes Cited
  • High Court Act
ai analysis
Case Summary

Key Issues

  • {"issue_text":"Whether a peregrinus applicant must furnish security for costs before proceeding with an urgent chamber application","issue_type":"procedural","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Applicant is foreign company; offered plant as security; no immovable property offered"}
  • {"issue_text":"Whether the plant offered by applicant can constitute adequate security for costs","issue_type":"mixed","dispositive":"no","related_facts":"Plant allegedly on verge of collapsing; no alternative security offered"}
This summary was generated by AI. Use Zalari to read the full judgment.
background
Facts of the Case

Background

The applicant, a foreign company, brought an urgent chamber application seeking to enforce a previous interdict order. The first to fifth respondents raised a point in limine that the applicant, being a peregrinus, must furnish security for costs before proceeding with the application.
Read the full judgment, get AI analysis, and find related cases
Open in Zalari →