Martin Potsekayi v Godfrey Nyamutambo and Estate Late Timothy Zakeyo (Represented by Mercy Zakeyo) and Volton (Private) Limited

The applicant sought an urgent interdict to prevent the sale of a building owned by the third respondent (Volton (Private) Limited), in which he claimed to have a financial interest, alleging he contributed funds towards its acquisition. The first respondent was a shareholder in the third respondent, along with the second respondent (a deceased estate). The applicant alleged that approximately three potential buyers came to the property, claiming that the first respondent was selling the building. The third respondent did not oppose the application. The second respondent, as the only other shareholder, consented to the provisional order for the protection of all parties. Historical background showed that in 2004, the late shareholder had previously sought an interdict against the first respondent when he attempted to dispose of the property. There was a pending case (HC 104/16) determining the applicant's claims against the third respondent.

• Whether the matter was properly certified as urgent
• Whether the certificate of urgency was defective
• Whether the applicant established a prima facie right to the interdict
• Whether there was a reasonable apprehension of injury
• Whether the applicant had an alternative remedy
• Whether the balance of convenience favoured granting the interdict
• Whether the first respondent was properly authorized to oppose on behalf of the third respondent

The court granted the provisional interdict barring the disposal through sale of the building owned by the third respondent pending the determination of the applicant's claims in HC 104/16.

For an interdict to be granted, the applicant must establish: (1) a prima facie right; (2) a reasonable apprehension of injury; (3) absence of alternative remedy; and (4) that the balance of convenience favours granting the relief. A shareholder or director cannot oppose an application on behalf of a company without proper authorization through a shareholder resolution. Where a company's asset is subject to competing claims and litigation is pending to determine those claims, an interdict should be granted to preserve the asset to prevent the final judgment from becoming ineffective or academic.

The court made observations about the deficiencies in the first respondent's counsel's approach to challenging the certificate of urgency, noting that counsel appeared to expect the certificate to be drafted in a manner he would personally approve, when in fact it was sufficient to lay a foundation for urgent treatment. The court also noted that the applicant need not prove the specific mode of advertising used for the sale, as the applicant's knowledge was limited to potential buyers visiting the property and claiming they were advised of the sale by the first respondent. The court commented on the historical pattern of the first respondent attempting to dispose of the property, referencing a 2004 interdict obtained by the late shareholder.

This case demonstrates the application of the established four-part test for interdicts in Zimbabwean law, particularly in urgent applications involving corporate property. It clarifies the importance of proper authorization for companies to oppose applications, requiring shareholder resolutions. The judgment reinforces the principle that courts will grant interdicts to preserve assets where their disposal would render future judgments ineffective (brutum fulmen). It also illustrates that consent or non-opposition by the party holding legal title to property (the company) and other shareholders is highly relevant to the balance of convenience assessment.