Archive logo
© Zimbabwe Law Reports — 2026.
Home

Navigation

Browse

Search

Find a case in seconds

Close search modal

Search by party name, citation, or a phrase from the judgment and move straight to the right volume.

Access noteResults only include content available on your current tier. If you do not have full case access, results from restricted case content will not appear.

Try a starting point
Member access

Welcome back

Sign in to continue browsing Zimbabwe Law Reports.

Don't have an account?

Menu

Close panel
Archive logo
← Home

1985 — Volume 2

Cases

Select a case to view its details and legal content.

EBRAHIM V CONTROLLER OF CUSTOMS & EXCISE
1985 (2) ZLR 1 (S)
S V ZVINOIRA
1985 (2) ZLR 9 (H)
ZENDERA V MCDADE & ANOR
1985 (2) ZLR 18 (H)
RB RANCHERS (PVT) LTD V ESTATE LATE MCLEAN & ANOR
1985 (2) ZLR 24 (H)
COMMERCIAL UNION FIRE, MARINE AND GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD V FAWCETT SECURITY ORGANISATION BULAWAYO (PVT) LTD
1985 (2) ZLR 31 (S)
S V NDEBU & ANOR
1985 (2) ZLR 45 (S)
SUPIYA V MUTARE DISTRICT COUNCIL & ORS
1985 (2) ZLR 53 (H)
S V KURIMWI
1985 (2) ZLR 63 (S)
NCUBE & ANOR V WILEY & ANOR
1985 (2) ZLR 69 (H)
PARKER V PARKER & ORS
1985 (2) ZLR 79 (H)
S V MUTUME
1985 (2) ZLR 94 (H)
BARR V ATTORNEY-GENERAL
1985 (2) ZLR 97 (H)
S V DHLIWAYO & ANOR
1985 (2) ZLR 101 (S)
S V CHALUWA
1985 (2) ZLR 121 (S)
S V PAWENI & ANOR
1985 (2) ZLR 133 (S)
GRAIN MARKETING BOARD V BINGA GURU (PVT) LTD
1985 (2) ZLR 147 (H)
S V MUCHENJE
1985 (2) ZLR 154 (S)
J PAAR & CO (PVT) LTD V SHIELD OF ZIMBABWE INSURANCE CO LTD & ANOR
1985 (2) ZLR 160 (H)
S V MUPANDUKI
1985 (2) ZLR 169 (S)
BAECK V TINAGO
1985 (2) ZLR 177 (H)
HUGHES V LOTRIET
1985 (2) ZLR 179 (H)
GEORGIADIS & FLOREY BUILDING (PVT) LTD V BORROWDALE BUTCHERY (PVT) LTD
1985 (2) ZLR 188 (H)
S V JENKINS
1985 (2) ZLR 193 (S)
MADONDO V MKUSHI
1985 (2) ZLR 198 (S)
S V BENATAR
1985 (2) ZLR 205 (H)
S V MHARAPARA
1985 (2) ZLR 211 (S)
A V COMMISSIONER OF TAXES
1985 (2) ZLR 223 (H)
CHIBAYA V CHIBAYA
1985 (2) ZLR 237 (H)
MUZONDO V MUZONDO
1985 (2) ZLR 240 (S)
S V MATEKETA
1985 (2) ZLR 248 (S)
S V NDHLOVU & ORS
1985 (2) ZLR 261 (S)
MEMAN & ANOR V CONTROLLER OF CUSTOMS AND EXCISE
1985 (2) ZLR 270 (H)
NCUBE V NDHLOVU
1985 (2) ZLR 281 (S)
S V MLALA
1985 (2) ZLR 287 (H)
CITY OF HARARE V PARSONS
1985 (2) ZLR 293 (S)
NATIONAL FOOD DISTRIBUTORS V WELTMAN
1985 (2) ZLR 310 (H)
WOLFENDEN V JACKSON
1985 (2) ZLR 313 (S)
STAMBOLIE & ANOR V NYAMUTAMBA TRANSPORT (PVT) LTD
1985 (2) ZLR 320 (H)
S V MUCHIMIKWA
1985 (2) ZLR 328 (S)
AGERE V NYAMBUYA
1985 (2) ZLR 336 (S)
S V MAKAMBA
1985 (2) ZLR 341 (S)
DULY & COMPANY LTD V SHONGE
1985 (2) ZLR 351 (S)
MAY & ORS V RESERVE BANK OF ZIMBABWE
1985 (2) ZLR 358 (S)
© Zimbabwe Law Reports — 2026.
Home

Navigation

Browse

Search

Find a case in seconds

Close search modal

Search by party name, citation, or a phrase from the judgment and move straight to the right volume.

Access noteResults only include content available on your current tier. If you do not have full case access, results from restricted case content will not appear.

Try a starting point
Member access

Welcome back

Sign in to continue browsing Zimbabwe Law Reports.

Don't have an account?

Menu

Close panel

STAMBOLIE & ANOR v NYAMUTAMBA TRANSPORT (PVT) LTD 1985 (2) ZLR 320 (H)

Case details
Citation
1985 (2) ZLR 320 (H)
Case No
Details not supplied
Court
High Court, Harare
Judge
Sandura JP
Heard
7, 8 November 1985
Judgment
11 December 1985
Counsel
A N H Eastwood for the petitioners, A P de Bourbon SC, with him R M Fitches for the respondent
Case Type
Petition
Annotations
No case annotations to date

Flynote

Companies Act [Chapter 190] — petition for provisional winding up order — ss 179(f), 178(a) and 178(c) — strict compliance with requirements of s 178(a) required — bona fide and reasonable dispute as to indebtedness will defeat a claim based on s 178(c).

Headnote

In an application for a rule nisi calling upon interested parties to show why the respondent should not be wound up in terms of the Companies Act [Chapter 190], the petition relied on s 179(f) of the Act to show that the respondent was unable to pay its debts. Accordingly petitioners relied on the provisions of ss 178(a) and 178(c) of the Act. Section 178(a) lays down three conditions with which a petitioning creditor must strictly comply. Failure to comply with each condition will defeat a claim based on it. Similarly before a petitioner can rely on s 178(c) he must satisfy the court that the respondent is unable to pay his debts. If the respondent can show that he has a bona fide and reasonable defence to the claim giving rise to the indebtedness this section will be of no assistance to the petitioner.

Sign in required

Continue beyond the preview

Sign in or create a free account — you get 2 full-case reads included.