Shepherd Murahwi and 6 Others v Ms Magwenzi and 4 Others

The seven applicants purchased stands (Stand Nos 713, 714, 715 and the remainder of Stand 279 Helensvale Township, Borrowdale, Harare). These stands were being interfered with by various respondents. The third respondent allegedly advertised for the sale of the fourth and fifth applicants' stands. The fourth respondent was a key player in the transaction. The fifth respondent claimed an interest in the property based on an alleged prior sale agreement, though this interest was only revealed when the fifth respondent applied for joinder. In the main matter (HC 2097/10), the first respondent's Managing Director (Edward Jambaya) did not meaningfully defend the claim or explain the fifth respondent's interest, instead merely pleading for more time to fulfill its part of the bargain. The position of the first and second respondents was clarified to the satisfaction of the applicants.

• Whether the applicants established the requirements for granting an interim interdict
• Whether the applicants had a clear right or prima facie right to the stands in question
• Whether there was a well-grounded apprehension of irreparable harm if the interim relief was not granted
• Whether the balance of convenience favoured granting interim relief
• Whether the applicants had any other satisfactory remedy
• Whether the interim interdict should bind the third, fourth and fifth respondents given their respective interests in the property

Interim interdict granted against the third, fourth and fifth respondents. The order interdicts these respondents, their employees or agents from developing, disposing or alienating Stand Nos. 713, 714, 715 and the remainder of Stand 279 Helensvale Township, Borrowdale, Harare, pending determination of the main matter HC 2097/10. No order was made against the first and second respondents as their position was clarified to the applicants' satisfaction. The order was to be served by the applicants' legal practitioners.

To obtain an interim interdict, an applicant must establish: (a) a clear right or prima facie right though open to some doubt; (b) if the right is only prima facie established, a well-grounded apprehension of irreparable harm if interim relief is not granted; (c) that the balance of convenience favours granting interim relief; and (d) that the applicant has no other satisfactory remedy. Where multiple parties have demonstrated interests in the property subject to the interdict, a holistic approach should be taken and the interim interdict should be couched to bind all parties with such interests to make the order effective.

The court observed that it was significant that in the main matter HC 2097/10, the first respondent's Managing Director did not proffer a meaningful defence to the main claim or explain the fifth respondent's interest which was later claimed to be based on a prior sale agreement. Instead, the defence was merely to plead for more time to fulfill the bargain. The court also noted that by applying for joinder, the fifth respondent had advertised its interest in the property to the whole world, and the temporary interdict could not be of any force or effect without affecting the fifth respondent.

This case demonstrates the Zimbabwean High Court's application of the established principles for granting interim interdicts in property disputes. It illustrates the court's willingness to take a holistic approach when multiple parties claim competing interests in the same property. The case also shows the importance of parties properly disclosing their interests and defences in the main matter, as the court was influenced by the first respondent's failure to meaningfully defend or explain the fifth respondent's alleged prior interest in the main action. The judgment reinforces that interim relief will be granted where purchasers can establish prima facie rights to property being interfered with by multiple parties claiming competing interests.