Pure Treatment Investments (Pvt) Ltd v Bryggen Hotels (Pvt) Ltd t/a Greys Inn

The applicant leased three bars from the respondent. The parties had a dispute relating to rentals and the lease agreement pending before the court, with the lease agreement due for expiry in October 2015. On 6 July 2015, the applicant encountered a woman named Sibonile Mahlangu at the leased property who identified herself as a judge and stated she had entered into a lease agreement with the respondent for a portion of the property that the applicant was leasing. She indicated her business was to prepare and sell meals and soft drinks on the portion she was leasing. The applicant alleged the third party had already started painting the property in preparation for moving in. The applicant did not confront the woman about trespassing, nor did it seek clarification from the respondent landlord before launching the urgent application.

• Whether the applicant established a prima facie right to the interim interdict sought
• Whether there was a well-grounded apprehension of irreparable harm
• Whether the applicant satisfied the requirements for granting an interim interdict
• Whether the facts presented by the applicant were sufficient to warrant the exercise of the court's discretion in granting the interdict

The application was dismissed with costs.

To obtain an interim interdict, an applicant must establish: (1) a clear right or prima facie right; (2) a well-grounded apprehension of irreparable harm; (3) absence of other remedy; and (4) that the balance of convenience favours the applicant. A "well-grounded apprehension" requires more than subjective fear; it must be objectively reasonable and based on good evidence and firm foundation. Where an applicant's founding affidavit lacks essential detail and the applicant has failed to take reasonable steps to verify facts or engage with the other parties before approaching court, the requirement of well-grounded apprehension of harm has not been satisfied. The granting of an interdict is a discretionary remedy that will only be exercised where the applicant has made a good case for the relief sought.

The court observed that a reasonable person in the applicant's position would have: (1) informed the third party that she could not lease the premises as the applicant was lawfully in occupation; and (2) sought audience with the landlord to establish what was happening before filing an application. The court commented that the applicant appeared to have adopted an "I will take you to court" approach without first establishing all necessary facts. The court also noted that an interdict is an extraordinary and robust remedy that should be granted only when the applicant has made a good case for the relief sought.

This case reinforces important principles regarding urgent interdict applications in Zimbabwean law. It emphasizes that applicants must present clear, detailed facts to establish a well-grounded apprehension of harm, and cannot simply rush to court without first attempting to verify facts and resolve matters through reasonable engagement with the parties involved. The judgment clarifies that "well-grounded apprehension" requires objective justification based on good evidence, not mere subjective fear. It also confirms that the granting of an interdict is a discretionary remedy that courts will only exercise where applicants have made a compelling case on the facts.