STREAMSLEIGH INVESTMENTS (PRIVATE) LIMITED
AUTOBAND INVESTMENTS (PRIVATE) LIMITED
CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF ZIMBABWE
HARARE, JULY 3 & 24, 2014
A P de Bourbon SC, for the applicant
L Uriri, for the respondent
Before: CHIDYAUSIKU, CJ, In Chambers
The facts of this case are lengthy and fairly complex, but have been fairly summarised by GOWORA J in judgment no. SC 43/14. There is no point in regurgitating them. However, I will restate some of the facts for the purpose of providing a context to this judgment.
The respondent, Autoband Investments (Private) Limited (“Autoband”), launched spoliation proceedings seeking to evict African Medical Investments (Private) Limited (“AMI”) from No. 15 Lanark Road, Belgravia, Harare (“the premises”) in the magistrate’s court. The present applicant, Streamsleigh Investments (Private) Limited (“Streamsleigh”) was not cited as a respondent in those proceedings although it contended that it was in occupation of the premises as owner of the premises. It follows from this contention that, according to Streamsleigh, Autoband was suing the wrong party. Although Streamsleigh was not cited by Autoband in those proceedings, it filed papers in opposition to the application for spoliation against AMI. An order of spoliation was granted and the learned magistrate ordered the eviction of AMI, and all those claiming occupation of the premises through AMI, from the premises. It would appear that there was no specific order against Streamsleigh, which, as I have already stated, contends it was in occupation of the premises at the relevant time and that its occupation was not through AMI but in its own right as owner of the premises. On the strength of the magistrate’s determination, Streamsleigh was evicted from the premises despite the spoliation order not being directed at it.
Streamsleigh was dissatisfied with this turn of events and launched a court application in the High Court. In that court application Streamsleigh sought to have set aside the spoliation order issued by the magistrate.