Diamond and Another vs Diamond and Others (1805/2023) [2023] SZHC 600 (12 October 2023)

Civil law and procedure - ("the patient') Rudolf Diamond who holds half share of the issued share capital in the second Applicant,  due to incapacitation has not been  able to  run the
business of the 2"d Respondent, resulting in this  Court appointing, JS' Respondent (Hertzal Diamond) and his son Lucky Diamond as his curator bonis and ad /item, an office they hold jointly - The reason why the matter is before Court is that Applicants are of the view that the 2"d Respondent is being mismanaged and thus seek to have order in the conduct of 2"d Applicant- To this effect, they have sought under a certificate of urgency, to i11terdict the conduct complained of - Respondents have  raised  points of  law on the application -  The  points of law are as follows; that the application is not urgent; that the 11011- joinder of Lucky Diamond as curator is fatal; that 1 s, Applicant lacks  authority  to  institute  the   application   on  behalf   of  2"d Appliccmt.

▲ To the top