1. It is declared that the appellant has been denied the right to the equal protection and benefit of the law protected and guaranteed in section 56(1) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe. 2. It is declared that the appellant’s property rights protected in section 71 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe have been infringed. 3. Consequently it is ordered that the judgment of the Supreme Court be set aside and the following be substituted: appeal is dismissed with costs’. ‘The 4. The respondent shall pay the costs of this appeal.” Attempts to evict Autoband on the strength of the Supreme Court order were resisted by Autoband on the ground that Autoband had noted an appeal to the Constitutional Court. Autoband contended that the appeal to the Constitutional Court had the effect of suspending the operation of the Supreme Court order. Given this situation, the Sheriff was at a loss on how to proceed. In an effort to find a way forward, Streamsleigh filed the present Chamber application. In this Chamber application Streamsleigh contends that the notice of appeal is void and of no effect. Streamsleigh further argues that because the notice of appeal is a nullity, there is therefore no appeal before the Constitutional Court and the eviction of Autoband should proceed. Autoband, on the other hand, contends that the appeal is valid. The respective stances of the parties are aptly captured in paragraphs 1 and 2 of Autoband’s heads of argument, which read as follows: The present application is one for: “1. 1.1 A declaration that the notice of appeal filed by the respondent in case number CCZ 43/2014 does not raise a constitutional question and is consequently void, and 1.2 An order directing that a writ of execution, purporting to have been issued out of the Supreme Court (which does not issue
1. It is declared that the appellant has been denied the right to the equal protection and benefit of the law protected and guaranteed in section 56(1) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe. 2. It is declared that the appellant’s property rights protected in section 71 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe have been infringed. 3. Consequently it is ordered that the judgment of the Supreme Court be set aside and the following be substituted: ‘The appeal is dismissed with costs’. 4. The respondent shall pay the costs of this appeal.” Attempts to evict Autoband on the strength of the Supreme Court order were resisted by Autoband on the ground that Autoband had noted an appeal to the Constitutional Court. Autoband contended that the appeal to the Constitutional Court had the effect of suspending the operation of the Supreme Court order. Given this situation, the Sheriff was at a loss on how to proceed. In an effort to find a way forward, Streamsleigh filed the present Chamber application. In this Chamber application Streamsleigh contends that the notice of appeal is void and of no effect. Streamsleigh further argues that because the notice of appeal is a nullity, there is therefore no appeal before the Constitutional Court and the eviction of Autoband should proceed. Autoband, on the other hand, contends that the appeal is valid. The respective stances of the parties are aptly captured in paragraphs 1 and 2 of Autoband’s heads of argument, which read as follows: “1. The present application is one for: 1.1 A declaration that the notice of appeal filed by the respondent in case number CCZ 43/2014 does not raise a constitutional question and is consequently void, and 1.2 An order directing that a writ of execution, purporting to have been issued out of the Supreme Court (which does not issue
CCZ%2008-14%20-%20STREAMSLEIGH%20INVESTMENTS%20%20v%20AUTOBAHN%20INVESTMENTS.docx