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

1987 — Volume 2

Cases

Select a case to view its details and legal content.

MXUMALO & ORS V GUNI
1987 (2) ZLR 1 (S)
S V JONGWE
1987 (2) ZLR 12 (H)
S V RUPIYA
1987 (2) ZLR 17 (H)
VOICEVALE LTD V FREIGHTLINK (MALAWI) LTD
1987 (2) ZLR 22 (S)
S V POLI
1987 (2) ZLR 30 (H)
ATTORNEY-GENERAL V PHIRI
1987 (2) ZLR 33 (H)
S V ZVINYENGE & ORS
1987 (2) ZLR 42 (S)
S V CHIKORE
1987 (2) ZLR 48 (H)
S V SIMON
1987 (2) ZLR 53 (H)
S V CHIWAMBUTSA
1987 (2) ZLR 59 (S)
S V NYANDORO
1987 (2) ZLR 66 (S)
PAHLA V PAHLA
1987 (2) ZLR 70 (H)
BORROWDALE COUNTRY CLUB V MURANDU
1987 (2) ZLR 77 (H)
S V BIZWICK
1987 (2) ZLR 83 (S)
TUTANI V MINISTER OF LABOUR MANPOWER PLANNING & SOCIAL SERVICES & ORS
1987 (2) ZLR 88 (H)
ATTORNEY-GENERAL V BVUMA & ANOR
1987 (2) ZLR 96 (S)
NGANI V MBANJE & ANOR MBANJE & ANOR V NGANI
1987 (2) ZLR 111 (S)
CHIDYAUSIKU V NYAKABAMBO
1987 (2) ZLR 119 (S)
MAKANDA V LAMBAT
1987 (2) ZLR 126 (H)
REID V GORE
1987 (2) ZLR 130 (H)
S V NATHOO SUPERMARKET (PVT) LTD
1987 (2) ZLR 136 (S)
WITHAM V MINISTER OF HOME AFFAIRS
1987 (2) ZLR 143 (H)
CARVALHO V MINISTER OF HOME AFFAIRS
1987 (2) ZLR 172 (H)
LEAFAM INVESTMENTS (PVT) LTD V KUPARA
1987 (2) ZLR 179 (H)
NYAMUSWA V MUKANYA
1987 (2) ZLR 186 (S)
BANK OF CREDIT AND COMMERCE ZIMBABWE LTD V MBIDZO
1987 (2) ZLR 190 (H)
S V DANGAREMBIZI & ANOR
1987 (2) ZLR 196 (H)
S V NYOKA
1987 (2) ZLR 202 (S)
TOBACCO SALES FLOORS LTD V CHIMWALA
1987 (2) ZLR 210 (S)
S V NYAMARO & ANOR
1987 (2) ZLR 222 (S)
S V DEHWE
1987 (2) ZLR 231 (S)
NYONI V NYONI
1987 (2) ZLR 243 (H)
S V NCUBE & ORS
1987 (2) ZLR 246 (S)
HUIZENGA NO V ZWINOIRA
1987 (2) ZLR 276 (H)
S V DE BRUYN
1987 (2) ZLR 288 (S)
MAFARA V LAW SOCIETY OF ZIMBABWE
1987 (2) ZLR 293 (S)
POLI V MINISTER OF FINANCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT & ANOR
1987 (2) ZLR 302 (S)
NOORMOHAMED V PATEL
1987 (2) ZLR 324 (S)
ZIMBABWE BONDED FIBREGLASS (PVT) LTD V PEECH
1987 (2) ZLR 338 (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

LEAFAM INVESTMENTS (PVT) LTD v KUPARA 1987 (2) ZLR 179 (H)

Case details
Citation
1987 (2) ZLR 179 (H)
Case No
Details not supplied
Court
High Court, Harare
Judge
Sandura JP
Heard
5 November 1987
Judgment
18 November 1987
Counsel
M J Gillespie, for the applicant. A P de Bourbon SC, for the respondent.
Case Type
Application for eviction
Annotations
No case annotations to date

Flynote

Landlord and tenant — eviction of statutory tenant — "good and sufficient grounds" — therefor — landlord requiring eviction to enable sale to take place — possibility that sale concluded only to evict tenant, previous attempts having failed — application refused.

Headnote

Before a landlord may evict a statutory tenant from commercial premises, s 22(2) of the Commercial Premises (Rent) Regulations requires that he shows "good and sufficient grounds" for evicting the tenant. The grounds which may be considered to be good and sufficient are not specified in the Regulations, and the courts must make a value judgment based on the merits of each case. In the present case, the applicant sought the eviction of the tenant, ostensibly because it had agreed to sell the premises and the sale was conditional upon the applicant obtaining vacant possession before transfer. However, the background to the case indicated that several doubts existed about the sale, such as whether the sale was merely a device designed to secure the eviction of the respondent, other attempts having failed. There was also a history of negotiations between the parties for the purchase by the applicant of the business run by the tenant and failure to agree on a purchase price.

Held, that the applicant had failed to establish good and sufficient grounds for the eviction of the tenant.

Sign in required

Continue beyond the preview

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