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

1986 — Volume 2

Cases

Select a case to view its details and legal content.

MANNING V MANNING
1986 (2) ZLR 1 (S)
MACEYS CONSOLIDATED (PVT) LTD & ANOR V TA HOLDINGS LTD (1)
1986 (2) ZLR 5 (S)
SAMBO V BARCLAYS BANK OF ZIMBABWE LIMITED
1986 (2) ZLR 25 (S)
AUSTIN & ANOR V THE MINISTER OF STATE (SECURITY) & ANOR BULL V THE MINISTER OF STATE (SECURITY) & ORS
1986 (2) ZLR 28 (S)
S V MASEKO
1986 (2) ZLR 52 (S)
ANDREW PHILLIPS (PVT) LTD V GDR PNEUMATICS (PVT) LTD
1986 (2) ZLR 65 (S)
S V MUNEMO
1986 (2) ZLR 71 (S)
S V JOKASI
1986 (2) ZLR 79 (S)
S V MPALA
1986 (2) ZLR 93 (S)
DUBE V KHUMALO
1986 (2) ZLR 103 (S)
GARFIELD V MINISTER OF DEFENCE
1986 (2) ZLR 112 (H)
PIO V SMITH
1986 (2) ZLR 120 (S)
S V KUGOTSI
1986 (2) ZLR 134 (H)
ATTORNEY-GENERAL V MUNGANYI
1986 (2) ZLR 137 (S)
S V CHIKUMBIKE
1986 (2) ZLR 145 (S)
MOFFAT OUTFITTERS (PVT) LTD V HOOSEIN & ORS
1986 (2) ZLR 148 (S)
BANDA V MINISTER OF DEFENCE
1986 (2) ZLR 156 (S)
MHUNGU V MTINDI
1986 (2) ZLR 171 (S)
MHENE V TEUBES
1986 (2) ZLR 179 (S)
SAYBROOK (1978) (PVT) LTD & ANOR V GIRDLESTONE
1986 (2) ZLR 185 (S)
RAG (PVT) LTD V HUIZENGA NO
1986 (2) ZLR 203 (S)
RK FOOTWEAR MANUFACTURERS (PVT) LTD V BOKA BOOKSALES (PVT) LTD
1986 (2) ZLR 209 (H)
ROLAND & ANOR V MCDONNELL
1986 (2) ZLR 216 (S)
AGRICULTURAL FINANCE CORPORATION V POCOCK
1986 (2) ZLR 229 (S)
S V CHOUHAN
1986 (2) ZLR 237 (S)
CHECKERS MOTORS (PVT) LTD V KAROI FARMTECH (PVT) LTD
1986 (2) ZLR 246 (S)
LE MANS MOTORS (PVT) LTD V COLLINS
1986 (2) ZLR 253 (S)
J PAAR & COMPANY (PVT) LTD V FAWCETT SECURITY ORGANISATION (BULAWAYO) (PVT) LTD
1986 (2) ZLR 255 (S)
AMBERLEY ESTATES (PVT) LTD V CONTROLLER OF CUSTOMS AND EXCISE
1986 (2) ZLR 269 (S)
S V MCNAB
1986 (2) ZLR 280 (S)
SENIORS SERVICE (PVT) LTD V NYONI
1986 (2) ZLR 293 (S)
MACEYS CONSOLIDATED (PVT) LTD & ANOR V T A HOLDINGS LTD (2)
1986 (2) ZLR 331 (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

SAYBROOK (1978) (PVT) LTD & ANOR v GIRDLESTONE 1986 (2) ZLR 185 (S)

Case details
Citation
1986 (2) ZLR 185 (S)
Case No
Details not supplied
Court
Supreme Court, Harare
Judge
Dumbutshena CJ, Beck JA & Gubbay JA
Heard
27 May 1986
Judgment
23 October 1986
Counsel
A N Eastwood, for the appellants. A P de Bourbon SC, for the respondents.
Case Type
Civil appeal
Annotations
Link to case annotations

Flynote

Delict — passing off — get — up — indirect representation by imitation of get — up that products were those of competitor — deception of ordinary purchaser.

Headnote

Generally a manufacturer is permitted to use and indeed to copy another's concepts, ideas and scenes in the absence of a registered patent or design except to the extent that his imitation amounts to a representation that that product in which such concepts, scenes, ideas or designs are incorporated is that of another manufacturer who has gained a reputation in the market through the concepts, ideas, scenes and design so copied.

The court must be satisfied that the conduct complained of is calculated to pass-off other goods as those of the complainant or at least to produce confusion in the minds of probable customers as would likely to lead to the other goods being bought for the complainant's.

The type of purchaser whose likely deception is to be considered is the ordinary person who has in mind's eye a general idea of the appearance and characteristics of the articles he wishes and who looks at the article not closely but sufficiently to take in its general appearance. 6

Sign in required

Continue beyond the preview

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