Jimmy Remekani v Nigel Moono

The applicant entered into a lease agreement with Juke Box Music (Pvt) Limited on 8 June 2021 for Stand Nos. 6 and 7 Mashayamombe Road, Kadoma, to operate an infant school called Father Flower Academy. At the time, Stand No. 6 was occupied by the respondent under a verbal lease agreement that was due to expire on 15 August 2021. The respondent had been served with three months' notice on 15 May 2021 to vacate but refused to leave. The landlord commenced separate eviction proceedings under Case No. HC 6140/21. Meanwhile, the applicant had registered the elementary school with Kadoma City Council and the Ministry of Primary and Secondary Education. Ministry officials inspected the premises and found the respondent was operating a shebeen and storing dangerous mining explosives. The Ministry gave the applicant until 8 November 2021 to rectify the situation or face deregistration and closure of the school, which had enrolled 192 pupils. The applicant sought an urgent interdict to stop the respondent from operating the shebeen and storing explosives. The respondent opposed, claiming his mother Beauty Moono was the actual tenant and that he had moved his business on 2 November 2021.

• Whether the applicant had cited the correct party in the interdict application
• Whether the matter met the requirements for urgency
• Whether the applicant established a clear right warranting an interdict
• Whether there was injury actually committed or reasonably apprehended
• Whether there was an absence of similar protection by any other ordinary remedy
• Whether all three requirements for an interdict needed to be satisfied

1. The respondent and all those claiming occupation of Stand No. 6 Mashayamombe Road, Kadoma through him were interdicted from operating a shebeen and from dealing in and storing dangerous mining explosives at Stand No. 6 Mashayamombe Road, Kadoma. 2. The respondent was ordered to pay costs of the application at the legal practitioner scale.

For an interdict to be granted, an applicant must establish: (1) a clear right; (2) injury actually committed or reasonably apprehended; and (3) absence of similar protection by any other ordinary remedy. All three requirements must be satisfied. A clear right can be established through a valid lease agreement conferring specific use rights over property. Where there is conflicting evidence about tenant identity, courts will give weight to formal notices and legal documents issued by the landlord identifying the tenant, particularly where the alleged tenant failed to dispute such identification when first made. The apprehension of harm is reasonable and sufficient where regulatory authorities have issued specific ultimatums threatening closure of a lawfully operating educational institution serving pupils, and the balance of convenience favors urgent relief where alternative remedies (such as police reports) cannot address the imminent threat as expeditiously.

The court expressed strong disapproval of the supporting affidavit from Beauty Moono (the respondent's mother), stating it was "full of falsehoods" and dismissing her assertions "with contempt they deserve." The court addressed conflicting jurisprudence on whether all three requirements for an interdict must always be established, noting the applicant's reliance on Equity Properties (Pvt) Ltd v Alshams Global BVI Ltd & Anor SC 101-21 (suggesting that where a clear right is established, a well-grounded apprehension of irreparable harm need not be proved) versus the respondent's reliance on Veld Cliff Engineering requiring all three requirements. The court noted that the respondent's counsel "back tracked and admitted that the issue of urgency does not arise in this matter" during oral submissions. The court also commented that reporting to police was not a remedy that could "arrest the situation as soon as possible."

This case illustrates the application of the well-established requirements for granting interdicts in Zimbabwean law, particularly in the context of property disputes involving educational institutions. It demonstrates how courts balance competing interests and apply the three-pronged test for interdicts. The case also addresses the important issue of identifying the correct party in landlord-tenant disputes and the evidentiary weight given to formal notices and court documents in determining tenant identity. It shows judicial willingness to protect educational institutions and pupils' interests when faced with illegal activities on leased premises.