Stay of Execution http://www.zimlii.org/ en Masanza and Another (Informa pauperis) v Rwafa and 2 Others (49 of 2022) [2022] ZWSC 49 (06 April 2022); http://www.zimlii.org/zw/judgment/supreme-court-zimbabwe/2022/49 <span class="field field--name-title field--type-string field--label-hidden">Masanza and Another (Informa pauperis) v Rwafa and 2 Others (49 of 2022) [2022] ZWSC 49 (06 April 2022);</span> <div class="field field--name-field-flynote field--type-entity-reference field--label-above"> <div class="field__label">Flynote</div> <div class='field__items'> <div class="field__item"><a href="/taxonomy/term/2345" hreflang="x-default">Acquisition of land</a></div> <div class="field__item"><a href="/taxonomy/term/1657" hreflang="en">Stay of Execution</a></div> <div class="field__item"><a href="/taxonomy/term/2208" hreflang="x-default">claim for eviction (Summary judgment)</a></div> <div class="field__item"><a href="/taxonomy/term/2269" hreflang="x-default">Urgent Application</a></div> <div class="field__item"><a href="/taxonomy/term/2271" hreflang="x-default">what constitutes urgency (Urgent application)</a></div> <div class="field__item"><a href="/taxonomy/term/2272" hreflang="x-default">when may be made (Urgent application)</a></div> </div> </div> <span class="field field--name-uid field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden"><span>Sandra Muengwa</span></span> <span class="field field--name-created field--type-created field--label-hidden">Wed, 05/18/2022 - 09:39</span> <div class="field field--name-field-files field--type-file field--label-above"> <div class="field__label">Download</div> <div class='field__items'> <div class="field__item"> <span class="file file--mime-application-vnd-openxmlformats-officedocument-wordprocessingml-document file--x-office-document"> <a href="https://media.zimlii.org/files/judgments/zwsc/2022/49/2022-zwsc-49.docx" type="application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document; length=26339">2022-zwsc-49.docx</a></span> </div> <div class="field__item"> <span class="file file--mime-application-pdf file--application-pdf"> <a href="https://media.zimlii.org/files/judgments/zwsc/2022/49/2022-zwsc-49.pdf" type="application/pdf; length=530107">2022-zwsc-49.pdf</a></span> </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-body field--type-text-with-summary field--label-hidden field__item"><p class="text-align-right"><span style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;">Judgment No. SC 49/22</span></p> <p align="right" style="text-align:right"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">Chamber Application No. SC 91/22</span></span></span></p> <p> </p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><u><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">DISTRIBUTABLE (39)</span></span></span></u></b></span></span></span></p> <p> </p> <ol><li align="center" style="margin-left:32px; text-align:center"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">NGWARU     MASANZA (<i>Informa pauperis</i>)     (2)    PRISCILLA     ZUNGUZA (<i>Informa pauperis</i>)       </span></span></span></b></span></span></span></li> </ol><p align="center" style="text-align:center"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">v</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <ol><li style="margin-left:80px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">LUKE     RWAFA     (2) PLACXEDAS     RWAFA     </span></span></span></b></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:120px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">(3) MESSENGER     OF     COURT</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p align="center" style="text-align:center"> </p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">SUPREME COURT OF ZIMBABWE</span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">HARARE, 6 APRIL 2022 </span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p> </p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Mr <i>T. Biti,</i> for the applicants</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Ms<i> V. Vhera,</i> for the respondents</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><u><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">URGENT CHAMBER APPLICATION</span></span></span></u></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">                             <b><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">CHIWESHE JA</span></span></span></b><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">:       In this urgent chamber application the applicants seek a provisional order couched as follows:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            <b>“TERMS OF THE FINAL ORDER SOUGHT</b></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">That you show cause to this Honourable Court why a final order should not be made in the following terms:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <ol><li style="margin-left:56px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">That a stay of execution of the order given in CHN 286/19 be granted pending application in the High Court for condonation for late filing of leave to appeal.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:56px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">In the event that this matter is opposed, that the Respondents be and are hereby ordered to pay costs.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">INTERIM RELIEF GRANTED </span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Pending finalisation of this matter an interim order is hereby granted in the following terms:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">IT IS ORDERED THAT:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <ol><li style="margin-left:38px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">This application succeeds and a stay of execution of the judgment in the Chinhoyi Magistrates’ Court under case number CHN 286/19 be and is hereby granted to the applicants pending application in the High Court for condonation for late filing of leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.”</span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"> </span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><u><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">FACTUAL BACKGROUND</span></span></span></u></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">                   <span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">In early 2000, at the height of the land reform programme, the applicants and many others moved to occupy Heydon Farm on the outskirts of Harare.  They proceeded to build family homes and to engage in agricultural activities.  Subsequently the whole of Heydon Farm was compulsorily acquired by the State and a notice to that effect was published in the Government Gazette in terms of the Land Acquisition Act [<i>Chapter 20:10</i>]. Contrary to their expectations none of the occupiers were favoured with either offer letters, permits or lease agreements which documents would have regularised their stay at Heydon Farm. Instead part of the farm was subdivided into residential stands with title deeds and sold to various persons. This formalised part of the farm is referred to as Heydon Township. The respondents who are husband and wife bought one of these residential stands described as stand 2915 Haydon Township, measuring 2193 square metres and received title. It is common cause that at the time of sale and transfer the applicants were resident at what became the respondents’ residential stand.  It is also common cause that the applicants have no legal basis to occupy Heydon Farm in general or the respondents’ stand in particular.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">                        In order to assert their proprietary rights, the respondents approached the Magistrates’ Court at Chinhoyi seeking an eviction order against the applicants. Their application succeeded and an order for the eviction of the applicants from Stand 2915 Haydon Township was granted under case number CHN 286/19. Aggrieved with that outcome the applicants noted an appeal with the High Court (the court <i>a</i> <i>quo)</i>. The court <i>a quo </i>dismissed the appeal and confirmed the eviction order granted by the Magistrates’ Court. The respondents then noted an appeal with this Court under case number SC 277/20 which appeal suspended the order of the court <i>a quo</i>.  Undeterred, the respondents filed an application for leave to execute pending appeal. The application was granted by CHITAPI J under case number HC 3097/20.  The applicants noted an appeal against that judgment under case number SC 441/20.  The appeal was struck off the roll on the grounds that leave to appeal ought to have been sought in the court <i>a quo.</i></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">                        In the meantime, pursuant to the order by CHITAPI J, the applicants were served with a notice of attachment and eviction from the respondents’ stand. The notice is dated 28 February 2022.  It is that notice that has triggered the present urgent chamber application wherein stay of execution is sought.  The application is opposed.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">                        The respondents have raised two preliminary issues, namely that the matter is not urgent and that the application has since been overtaken by events on the ground. It is argued that the urgency is self-created as the applicants failed to act when the need to act arose on 15 February 2022 when the applicants’ appeal under case number SC 441/20 was struck off the roll.  The applicants should have known that as a result the respondents would, in the absence of a pending appeal, proceed with eviction. Instead of acting there and then the applicants waited till they were served with the notice of attachment and eviction dated 28 February 2022, thirteen days after SC 441/20 was struck off. I am of the view that the criticism levelled against the applicants in this regard is not warranted. A delay of thirteen days cannot, in the circumstances of this case, be regarded as inordinate. The applicants had been to this Court on appeal. They were not sitting on their laurels. The appeal was not dismissed but struck off the roll on a technicality. They are attending at the High Court seeking leave to appeal. Whilst awaiting the results they were served with the notice of eviction. They have reacted swiftly to that notice by filing the present application. I would for those reasons dismiss the preliminary issue and hold that the matter be treated as urgent.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">                        However, the second preliminary issue has merit and is dispositive of the application. The respondents contended that the applicants have been evicted from their stand in terms of an extant eviction order. Mr <i>Biti</i>, for the applicants, has not denied that his clients have been evicted. Instead he sought to<b> </b>argue that the eviction was not effectively carried out as the Messenger of Court only threw out the applicants’ property but left the dwelling shack intact. The implication being that the applicants, having been evicted returned to occupy the shack. It would be remiss of this Court to run along with Mr <i>Biti’s </i>suggestion and reverse an eviction properly executed in terms of a court order on the grounds that the Messenger of Court ought to have destroyed the dwelling shack. What was to be evicted are the applicants and not their shack. I hold therefore that the eviction was effected and that the applicants’ return to the stand is in direct disregard of a lawfully given court order. This Court cannot condone their contemptuous conduct.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">                        I agree with the respondents that in view of the applicants’ eviction this application has been overtaken by events and has thus been rendered moot. It cannot succeed.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">                        As the applicants are indigent there shall be no order as to costs.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">                        </span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">                        It is ordered as follows:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">“The application be and is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.”</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> </div> <div class="views-element-container"><div class="view view-eva view-download-conditional view-id-download_conditional view-display-id-entity_view_1 js-view-dom-id-52b8df29c51dc811ed460027dcb17cfd1fdba09045d1efde397ef8b49bfa2af2"> <div><div class="views-field views-field-views-conditional-field"><span class="field-content"><p class="text-align-right"><span style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;">Judgment No. SC 49/22</span></p> <p align="right" style="text-align:right"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">Chamber Application No. SC 91/22</span></span></span></p> <p> </p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><u><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">DISTRIBUTABLE (39)</span></span></span></u></b></span></span></span></p> <p> </p> <ol><li align="center" style="margin-left:32px; text-align:center"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">NGWARU     MASANZA (<i>Informa pauperis</i>)     (2)    PRISCILLA     ZUNGUZA (<i>Informa pauperis</i>)       </span></span></span></b></span></span></span></li> </ol><p align="center" style="text-align:center"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">v</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <ol><li style="margin-left:80px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">LUKE     RWAFA     (2) PLACXEDAS     RWAFA     </span></span></span></b></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:120px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">(3) MESSENGER     OF     COURT</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p align="center" style="text-align:center"> </p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">SUPREME COURT OF ZIMBABWE</span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">HARARE, 6 APRIL 2022 </span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p> </p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Mr <i>T. Biti,</i> for the applicants</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Ms<i> V. Vhera,</i> for the respondents</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><u><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">URGENT CHAMBER APPLICATION</span></span></span></u></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">                             <b><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">CHIWESHE JA</span></span></span></b><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">:       In this urgent chamber application the applicants seek a provisional order couched as follows:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            <b>“TERMS OF THE FINAL ORDER SOUGHT</b></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">That you show cause to this Honourable Court why a final order should not be made in the following terms:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <ol><li style="margin-left:56px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">That a stay of execution of the order given in CHN 286/19 be granted pending application in the High Court for condonation for late filing of leave to appeal.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:56px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">In the event that this matter is opposed, that the Respondents be and are hereby ordered to pay costs.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">INTERIM RELIEF GRANTED </span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Pending finalisation of this matter an interim order is hereby granted in the following terms:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">IT IS ORDERED THAT:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <ol><li style="margin-left:38px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">This application succeeds and a stay of execution of the judgment in the Chinhoyi Magistrates’ Court under case number CHN 286/19 be and is hereby granted to the applicants pending application in the High Court for condonation for late filing of leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.”</span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"> </span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><u><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">FACTUAL BACKGROUND</span></span></span></u></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">                   <span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">In early 2000, at the height of the land reform programme, the applicants and many others moved to occupy Heydon Farm on the outskirts of Harare.  They proceeded to build family homes and to engage in agricultural activities.  Subsequently the whole of Heydon Farm was compulsorily acquired by the State and a notice to that effect was published in the Government Gazette in terms of the Land Acquisition Act [<i>Chapter 20:10</i>]. Contrary to their expectations none of the occupiers were favoured with either offer letters, permits or lease agreements which documents would have regularised their stay at Heydon Farm. Instead part of the farm was subdivided into residential stands with title deeds and sold to various persons. This formalised part of the farm is referred to as Heydon Township. The respondents who are husband and wife bought one of these residential stands described as stand 2915 Haydon Township, measuring 2193 square metres and received title. It is common cause that at the time of sale and transfer the applicants were resident at what became the respondents’ residential stand.  It is also common cause that the applicants have no legal basis to occupy Heydon Farm in general or the respondents’ stand in particular.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">                        In order to assert their proprietary rights, the respondents approached the Magistrates’ Court at Chinhoyi seeking an eviction order against the applicants. Their application succeeded and an order for the eviction of the applicants from Stand 2915 Haydon Township was granted under case number CHN 286/19. Aggrieved with that outcome the applicants noted an appeal with the High Court (the court <i>a</i> <i>quo)</i>. The court <i>a quo </i>dismissed the appeal and confirmed the eviction order granted by the Magistrates’ Court. The respondents then noted an appeal with this Court under case number SC 277/20 which appeal suspended the order of the court <i>a quo</i>.  Undeterred, the respondents filed an application for leave to execute pending appeal. The application was granted by CHITAPI J under case number HC 3097/20.  The applicants noted an appeal against that judgment under case number SC 441/20.  The appeal was struck off the roll on the grounds that leave to appeal ought to have been sought in the court <i>a quo.</i></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">                        In the meantime, pursuant to the order by CHITAPI J, the applicants were served with a notice of attachment and eviction from the respondents’ stand. The notice is dated 28 February 2022.  It is that notice that has triggered the present urgent chamber application wherein stay of execution is sought.  The application is opposed.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">                        The respondents have raised two preliminary issues, namely that the matter is not urgent and that the application has since been overtaken by events on the ground. It is argued that the urgency is self-created as the applicants failed to act when the need to act arose on 15 February 2022 when the applicants’ appeal under case number SC 441/20 was struck off the roll.  The applicants should have known that as a result the respondents would, in the absence of a pending appeal, proceed with eviction. Instead of acting there and then the applicants waited till they were served with the notice of attachment and eviction dated 28 February 2022, thirteen days after SC 441/20 was struck off. I am of the view that the criticism levelled against the applicants in this regard is not warranted. A delay of thirteen days cannot, in the circumstances of this case, be regarded as inordinate. The applicants had been to this Court on appeal. They were not sitting on their laurels. The appeal was not dismissed but struck off the roll on a technicality. They are attending at the High Court seeking leave to appeal. Whilst awaiting the results they were served with the notice of eviction. They have reacted swiftly to that notice by filing the present application. I would for those reasons dismiss the preliminary issue and hold that the matter be treated as urgent.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">                        However, the second preliminary issue has merit and is dispositive of the application. The respondents contended that the applicants have been evicted from their stand in terms of an extant eviction order. Mr <i>Biti</i>, for the applicants, has not denied that his clients have been evicted. Instead he sought to<b> </b>argue that the eviction was not effectively carried out as the Messenger of Court only threw out the applicants’ property but left the dwelling shack intact. The implication being that the applicants, having been evicted returned to occupy the shack. It would be remiss of this Court to run along with Mr <i>Biti’s </i>suggestion and reverse an eviction properly executed in terms of a court order on the grounds that the Messenger of Court ought to have destroyed the dwelling shack. What was to be evicted are the applicants and not their shack. I hold therefore that the eviction was effected and that the applicants’ return to the stand is in direct disregard of a lawfully given court order. This Court cannot condone their contemptuous conduct.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">                        I agree with the respondents that in view of the applicants’ eviction this application has been overtaken by events and has thus been rendered moot. It cannot succeed.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">                        As the applicants are indigent there shall be no order as to costs.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">                        </span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">                        It is ordered as follows:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">“The application be and is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.”</span></span></span></span></span></span></p></span></div></div> </div> </div> Wed, 18 May 2022 09:39:36 +0000 Sandra Muengwa 12492 at http://www.zimlii.org Sibanda v G & G Preserves (Pvt) Ltd and Another (20 of 2022) [2022] ZWBHC 20 (20 January 2022); http://www.zimlii.org/zw/judgment/bulawayo-high-court/2022/20 <span class="field field--name-title field--type-string field--label-hidden">Sibanda v G &amp; G Preserves (Pvt) Ltd and Another (20 of 2022) [2022] ZWBHC 20 (20 January 2022);</span> <div class="field field--name-field-flynote field--type-entity-reference field--label-above"> <div class="field__label">Flynote</div> <div class='field__items'> <div class="field__item"><a href="/taxonomy/term/1657" hreflang="en">Stay of Execution</a></div> <div class="field__item"><a href="/taxonomy/term/2208" hreflang="x-default">claim for eviction (Summary judgment)</a></div> <div class="field__item"><a href="/taxonomy/term/2134" hreflang="x-default">MINES AND MINERALS</a></div> <div class="field__item"><a href="/taxonomy/term/2269" hreflang="x-default">Urgent Application</a></div> </div> </div> <span class="field field--name-uid field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden"><span>Sandra Muengwa</span></span> <span class="field field--name-created field--type-created field--label-hidden">Thu, 05/12/2022 - 12:23</span> <div class="field field--name-field-files field--type-file field--label-above"> <div class="field__label">Download</div> <div class='field__items'> <div class="field__item"> <span class="file file--mime-application-vnd-openxmlformats-officedocument-wordprocessingml-document file--x-office-document"> <a href="https://media.zimlii.org/files/judgments/zwbhc/2022/20/2022-zwbhc-20.docx" type="application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document; length=28860">2022-zwbhc-20.docx</a></span> </div> <div class="field__item"> <span class="file file--mime-application-pdf file--application-pdf"> <a href="https://media.zimlii.org/files/judgments/zwbhc/2022/20/2022-zwbhc-20.pdf" type="application/pdf; length=144287">2022-zwbhc-20.pdf</a></span> </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-body field--type-text-with-summary field--label-hidden field__item"><p align="right" class="MsoHeader" style="text-align:right"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">HB 20/22</span></span></p> <p align="right" class="MsoHeader" style="text-align:right"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">HC 1928/21</span></span></p> <p align="right" class="MsoHeader" style="text-align:right"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">X REF HC 1925/21</span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">THEMBA SIBANDA</span></span></b></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Versus</span></span></b></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">G &amp; G PRESERVES (PVT) LTD</span></span></b></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">And</span></span></b></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">SHERIFF OF THE HIGH COURT N.O</span></span></b></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">IN THE HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">KABASA J</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">BULAWAYO 15 DECEMBER 2021 &amp; 20 JANUARY 2022</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Urgent Chamber Application</span></span></b></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">T. Tavengwa</span></span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"> for the applicant</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Ms. M. Sibanda</span></span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"> for 1<sup>st</sup> respondent</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">No appearance for the 2<sup>nd</sup> respondent</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:200%" xml:lang="EN-US">            <b>KABASA J:   </b>This is an urgent chamber application wherein the applicant seeks the following interim relief:</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            “Pending the return date, the applicant is granted the following relief:</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <ol><li class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The execution of the writ of execution under HC 1430/17 issued on 2<sup>nd</sup> December 2021 by the Registrar of the High Court be and is hereby stayed.</span></span></span></span></li> <li class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The 2<sup>nd</sup> respondent be and is hereby interdicted from ejecting applicant from remaining extent Lot B Lower Rangemore, Umguza as per Notice of Removal dated 7<sup>th</sup> December 2021.</span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The final order sought should the interim relief be granted is:</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"> </p> <ol><li class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The Certificate of Registration issued by the Ministry of Mines and Mining Development on 29<sup>th</sup> November 2021 under licence number 025192 BA, registration number 17408 BM in favour of the applicant be and is hereby declared to be valid and binding.</span></span></span></span></li> <li class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The writ of execution under HC 1430/17 issued by the Registrar of the High Court on 2<sup>nd</sup> December 2021 be and is hereby suspended until such time that applicant’s existing mining rights are lawfully impeached.</span></span></span></span></li> <li class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">1<sup>st</sup> respondent to pay costs of suit on attorney-client scale.”</span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"> </p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:200%" xml:lang="EN-US">The background facts to the matter are these:</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:200%" xml:lang="EN-US">            The applicant was in occupation of a piece of land known as remaining extent of Lot “B” Lower Rangemore, Umguza, a property owned by the respondent.  The applicant was conducting mining operations thereat.</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:200%" xml:lang="EN-US">            The respondent then brought an action seeking to evict the applicant from the property and this action was brought under HC 1430/17.  The applicant defended the matter and sought to argue that he was in lawful occupation of the property.</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:200%" xml:lang="EN-US">            In a judgment handed down on 21 May 2020 M</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:200%">ABHIKWA</span></span><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:200%" xml:lang="EN-US"> J held that the applicant had no lawful authority to be on these premises, the documents from the Ministry of Mines which he believed authorized him to be on these premises did not so authorize him and the description of the property on these documents did not relate to the respondent’s property.</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:200%" xml:lang="EN-US">            The court’s order in HC 1430/17 is couched as follows:</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:72px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-18.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">“1. That the defendant shall immediately vacate the remaining extent of Lot “B” Lower Rangemore, Umguza.</span></span></span></span></p> <ol start="2"><li class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Failing the above, the Sheriff of Zimbabwe or his lawful deputy shall evict the defendant from the remaining extent of Lot “B” Lower Rangemore, Umguza.”</span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:200%" xml:lang="EN-US">The applicant appealed against this judgment and on the date of hearing sought to withdraw the appeal.  The withdrawal was premised on the realization that the judgment in HC 1430/17 was unassailable as the applicant, with hindsight, appreciated that the documents he possessed did not authorize him to occupy the land from which he was to be evicted.</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:200%" xml:lang="EN-US">            The appeal was subsequently dismissed after the Supreme Court held that it was already seized with the matter and so declined to dispose of it on the basis of a withdrawal.  The dismissal was on 17<sup>th</sup> November 2021.</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:200%" xml:lang="EN-US">The applicant had, in the meantime, sought to regularize his occupation of the piece of land and under HC 571/21 obtained the following order from T</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:200%">AKUVA</span></span><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:200%" xml:lang="EN-US"> J.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">“1.       The respondent be and is hereby ordered to immediately furnish applicant with a certificate of registration for 1 x 150 blocks of quarry at the remaining extent Lot “B” Rangemore, Umguza, over the area specified on the survey report dated 30<sup>th</sup> November 2016.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">2.         The applicant, after receipt of the certificate of registration referred to in (1) above, be and is hereby authorized to resume mining activities on the 1 x 150 block of quarry at the remaining extent Lot “B” Rangemore, Umguza on the area specified on the survey report dated 30<sup>th</sup> November 2016.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            3.         No order as to costs.”</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:200%" xml:lang="EN-US">            This order was granted against the Provincial Mining Director and effectively addressed the issue which had led to the decision in HC 1430/17.  The applicant upon granting of the certificate of registration, would now have the authority which he hitherto did not have resulting in his eviction under HC 1430/17.</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:200%" xml:lang="EN-US">            The Provincial Mining Director, in compliance with the order in HC 571/21 proceeded to grant the applicant the certificate of registration 025192BA on 29 November 2021.</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:200%" xml:lang="EN-US">            Following the granting of this certificate of registration, applicant’s legal practitioners wrote to the respondent’s legal practitioners advising them of this development and further drawing their attention to the fact that, that which the applicant did not have at the time an order for his eviction was granted in HC 1430/17 he now had.  This letter is dated 30<sup>th</sup> November 2021.  On receipt of that letter the respondent obtained a writ of ejectment on 2<sup>nd</sup> December 2021 seeking to have the applicant evicted in terms of the order in HC 1430/17.</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:200%" xml:lang="EN-US">            The applicant subsequently filed an urgent chamber application under HC 1925/21 in which he sought an interdict against his eviction pending the determination of the matter relating to his authority to be on the land in question.  The gist of that application was that the order in HC 1430/17 was a <i>brutum fulmen</i> as it had been overtaken by events and the final order sought to declare it so.</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:200%" xml:lang="EN-US">            The application was placed before MOYO J who raised the following as a query.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">“I decline to hear the matter on the basis of urgency because the execution of an extant order of court cannot be interfered with except if the order is being challenged either by a rescission or an appeal.  I cannot stop the execution of a lawful order of court which applicant calls a <i>brutum fulmen</i> as that order stands until set aside by a competent court.”</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:200%" xml:lang="EN-US">            At the time of the hearing of this current application this query had not been communicated to the parties.</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:200%" xml:lang="EN-US">            Counsel for the respondent proceeded to submit that the applicant had filed a similar application and had failed to disclose material facts in the current application and so the application should be struck off the roll as an earlier similar application had been heard and dismissed. Counsel did not have a copy of the judgment nor the order.</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:200%" xml:lang="EN-US">            <i>Mr. Tavengwa</i>, for the applicant, expressed ignorance of that development and an adjournment was granted so the correct position could be verified.  It was then that it turned out that the judge had not granted an order but raised a query which was yet to be communicated to the parties. The file was not with Registry but with the secretaries who were yet to type the judge’s handwritten query which was stapled on the inside cover of the file. It became clear that the application had not been heard and the parties had not appeared before the judge.</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:200%" xml:lang="EN-US">            In the meantime a notice of withdrawal had been filed on 13<sup>th</sup> December 2021.  Based on the handwritten query by the judge and the date on the typed query, such withdrawal appears to have been made before the judge’s query was communicated to the parties.</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:200%" xml:lang="EN-US">            In her response to the application I am seized with, <i>Ms. Sibanda</i> submitted that the High Court judgment under HC 1430/17 became a Supreme Court judgment upon the dismissal of the appeal on 17<sup>th</sup> November 2021.</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:200%" xml:lang="EN-US">            Counsel further submitted that applicant must first have HC 1430/17 vacated as it is extant and further that in HC 1925/21 M</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:200%">OYO</span></span><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:200%" xml:lang="EN-US"> J heard and dismissed a similar application based on same facts.  The applicant could therefore not seek to bring the same application back before a different judge.</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:200%" xml:lang="EN-US">            Before I called for HC 1925/21 I was of the view that the applicant was seeking to have the same matter adjudicated over by a different judge in the hope that he would get a different outcome.</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:200%" xml:lang="EN-US">            However, a reading of HC 1925/21 showed that no hearing was conducted and before the judge’s query was communicated to the parties, the applicant withdrew the application.  I must say I find nothing amiss with an applicant who withdraws a matter before a determination is made.</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:200%" xml:lang="EN-US">            The learned judge in HC 1925/21 appears to have invoked rule 60 subrule 15 of the High Court Rules, SI 202 of 2021 which provide that:</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">“In determining the fate of a chamber application, a judge may raise such queries as he or she may consider pertinent to the disposal of the application.”</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:200%" xml:lang="EN-US">            The rules do not preclude the withdrawal of a matter where a query has been raised and a party in addressing such query decides to withdraw the matter.  There is also no legal impediment to a filing of a fresh application attending to or addressing the queries so raised.</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:200%" xml:lang="EN-US">I am of the view that no determination was made in HC1925/21 because there is no court order. There was no definitive order made, either striking the matter off the roll or dismissing it as had been submitted by counsel for the respondent. I am fortified in saying so because the Registrar eventually communicated with the parties and such communication was couched as follows:</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:200%" xml:lang="EN-US">“I refer to your chamber application which was placed before the Honourable Justice Moyo who commented as follows……………...”</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:200%" xml:lang="EN-US">The comment is as already captured elsewhere in this judgment.</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:200%" xml:lang="EN-US">            It is therefore not correct that the application in HC 1925/21 was heard and dismissed.  The argument that the current application should therefore suffer a still birth is, in the circumstances, misplaced.</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:200%" xml:lang="EN-US">            The following facts are therefore not in dispute:</span></span></span></span></p> <ol><li style="text-align:justify; margin-left:8px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:200%" xml:lang="EN-US">Under HC 1430/17 the applicant did not have the requisite authority to be on the respondent’s land.</span></span></span></span></li> <li style="text-align:justify; margin-left:8px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:200%" xml:lang="EN-US">The applicant was ordered to vacate the respondent’s property by a judgment handed down on 21 May 2020.</span></span></span></span></li> <li style="text-align:justify; margin-left:8px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:200%" xml:lang="EN-US">An appeal was noted against this judgment which counsel with hindsight sought to withdraw but was however dismissed by the Supreme Court on 17 November 2021.</span></span></span></span></li> <li style="text-align:justify; margin-left:8px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:200%" xml:lang="EN-US">Both HC 1430/17 and the Supreme Court decision were not concerned with the certificate of registration subsequently obtained by the applicant post these decisions. </span></span></span></span></li> <li style="text-align:justify; margin-left:8px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:200%" xml:lang="EN-US">HC 527/21 compelled the Provincial Mining Director to grant the applicant authority to be on the land and upon such issuance of the requisite authority, allowed applicant to resume mining operations on that land.</span></span></span></span></li> <li style="text-align:justify; margin-left:8px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:200%" xml:lang="EN-US">HC 527/21 is extant and the certificate of registration issued in compliance with the order in HC 527/21 has not been impugned.</span></span></span></span></li> <li style="text-align:justify; margin-left:8px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:200%" xml:lang="EN-US">The respondent did not seek the eviction of the applicant until after the applicant had regularized his occupation of the land in question by virtue of the certificate of registration issued by the Provincial Mining Director.</span></span></span></span></li> <li style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px; margin-left:8px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:200%" xml:lang="EN-US">The present application seeks to stop the eviction pending the return date when the issue of the certificate of registration and its validity will be ventilated.</span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:24px; text-align:justify; text-indent:18.0pt; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:200%" xml:lang="EN-US">From the foregoing the point <i>in limine</i> raised by counsel for the respondent has no merit.</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:200%" xml:lang="EN-US">This application was lodged on 13<sup>th</sup> December 2021 after the withdrawal of the one lodged on 8<sup>th</sup> December 2021.  The applicant came to know of the impending eviction on 7<sup>th</sup> December 2021.  There is no doubt the application to halt the impending eviction was made without undue delay.  When the need to act arose, the applicant promptly acted <i>(Kuvarega</i> v <i>Registrar General and Anor</i> 1998 (1) ZLR 188).</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:200%" xml:lang="EN-US">A failure by the court to act would justify the applicant dismissively suggesting “… that it should not bother to act subsequently as the position would have become irreversible and irreversibly so to the prejudice of the applicant.”  (<i>Documents Support Centre P/L</i> v <i>Mapuvire</i> 2006 (2) ZLR 240)</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:200%" xml:lang="EN-US">The basis for this application is hinged on the acquisition of the requisite authority to occupy the land which was obtained following the order granted under HC 527/21.  It therefore cannot be said the gist and argument <i>in casu</i> is the same as in HC 1925/21, which application was, in any event, withdrawn.</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:200%" xml:lang="EN-US">Counsel for the respondent did not address the court on the merits of the matter.  An invitation to counsel to address the court on the merits was turned down.  It follows therefore that the submissions made on the merits were not challenged. There is therefore nothing to controvert the applicant’s averment that the Registration Certificate granted on 29 November 2021 authorises him to occupy the land in question, for mining purposes.</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:200%" xml:lang="EN-US">The applicant managed to establish a prima facie right which was about to be infringed by the impending eviction.  The applicant submitted that he has heavy machinery on the land which cannot be easily moved and stored elsewhere.  He has nowhere to keep that machinery and he has invested in this mining operation with families eking out a living from such operation.  Eviction by its very nature is disruptive and may also result in damage to property. It therefore cannot be disputed that the fear of irreparable harm is real. More so as this eviction would seek to dismantle operations that have been in existence since 2017, albeit without authority, before the granting of the order in HC 527/21.</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:200%" xml:lang="EN-US">The applicant sought to engage the respondent so they could find common ground but such overtures were seemingly spurned as the response came in the form of a warrant of ejectment.</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:200%" xml:lang="EN-US">There is therefore no other alternative remedy available to the applicant except the granting of the interim relief so as to halt the eviction.</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:200%" xml:lang="EN-US">The balance of convenience favours the granting of the interim relief.  The facts already canvassed are supportive of this finding as the applicant is likely to be prejudiced if evicted whereas the respondent had the judgment in HC 1430/17 for more than a year and had not sought to execute it until receipt of the letter dated 30th November 2021.</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:200%" xml:lang="EN-US">The requirements for an interim interdict were therefore met (<i>Gold Reef Mining (Pty) Ltd</i> v <i>Mnjiva Consulting Engineers (Pty) Ltd &amp; Anor</i> HH-631-15)</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:24px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:200%" xml:lang="EN-US">      In the result I make the following order:</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:200%" xml:lang="EN-US">“1. Pending the return date, the execution of the writ of eviction under HC 1430/17 issued on 2<sup>nd</sup> December 2021 by the Registrar of the High Court be and is hereby stayed.</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:200%" xml:lang="EN-US">2.The 2<sup>nd</sup> respondent be and is hereby interdicted from ejecting the applicant from remaining extent Lot “B” Lower Rangemore, Umguza as per the notice of removal dated 7<sup>th</sup> December 2021.”</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;MutTimes New Roman&quot;,serif">Mutuso, Taruvinga &amp; Mhiribidi</span></span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;MutTimes New Roman&quot;,serif">, applicant’s legal practitioners</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;MutTimes New Roman&quot;,serif">Messrs. Vundhla-Phulu &amp; Partners</span></span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;MutTimes New Roman&quot;,serif">, respondent’s legal practitioners</span></span></span></span></p> </div> <div class="views-element-container"><div class="view view-eva view-download-conditional view-id-download_conditional view-display-id-entity_view_1 js-view-dom-id-e17d329cfae1888b63240ac7aff1b792e2c3825eb4742e1f5403389c9c4890fa"> <div><div class="views-field views-field-views-conditional-field"><span class="field-content"><p align="right" class="MsoHeader" style="text-align:right"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">HB 20/22</span></span></p> <p align="right" class="MsoHeader" style="text-align:right"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">HC 1928/21</span></span></p> <p align="right" class="MsoHeader" style="text-align:right"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">X REF HC 1925/21</span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">THEMBA SIBANDA</span></span></b></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Versus</span></span></b></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">G &amp; G PRESERVES (PVT) LTD</span></span></b></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">And</span></span></b></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">SHERIFF OF THE HIGH COURT N.O</span></span></b></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">IN THE HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">KABASA J</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">BULAWAYO 15 DECEMBER 2021 &amp; 20 JANUARY 2022</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Urgent Chamber Application</span></span></b></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">T. Tavengwa</span></span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"> for the applicant</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Ms. M. Sibanda</span></span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"> for 1<sup>st</sup> respondent</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">No appearance for the 2<sup>nd</sup> respondent</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:200%" xml:lang="EN-US">            <b>KABASA J:   </b>This is an urgent chamber application wherein the applicant seeks the following interim relief:</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            “Pending the return date, the applicant is granted the following relief:</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <ol><li class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The execution of the writ of execution under HC 1430/17 issued on 2<sup>nd</sup> December 2021 by the Registrar of the High Court be and is hereby stayed.</span></span></span></span></li> <li class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The 2<sup>nd</sup> respondent be and is hereby interdicted from ejecting applicant from remaining extent Lot B Lower Rangemore, Umguza as per Notice of Removal dated 7<sup>th</sup> December 2021.</span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The final order sought should the interim relief be granted is:</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"> </p> <ol><li class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The Certificate of Registration issued by the Ministry of Mines and Mining Development on 29<sup>th</sup> November 2021 under licence number 025192 BA, registration number 17408 BM in favour of the applicant be and is hereby declared to be valid and binding.</span></span></span></span></li> <li class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The writ of execution under HC 1430/17 issued by the Registrar of the High Court on 2<sup>nd</sup> December 2021 be and is hereby suspended until such time that applicant’s existing mining rights are lawfully impeached.</span></span></span></span></li> <li class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">1<sup>st</sup> respondent to pay costs of suit on attorney-client scale.”</span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"> </p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:200%" xml:lang="EN-US">The background facts to the matter are these:</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:200%" xml:lang="EN-US">            The applicant was in occupation of a piece of land known as remaining extent of Lot “B” Lower Rangemore, Umguza, a property owned by the respondent.  The applicant was conducting mining operations thereat.</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:200%" xml:lang="EN-US">            The respondent then brought an action seeking to evict the applicant from the property and this action was brought under HC 1430/17.  The applicant defended the matter and sought to argue that he was in lawful occupation of the property.</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:200%" xml:lang="EN-US">            In a judgment handed down on 21 May 2020 M</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:200%">ABHIKWA</span></span><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:200%" xml:lang="EN-US"> J held that the applicant had no lawful authority to be on these premises, the documents from the Ministry of Mines which he believed authorized him to be on these premises did not so authorize him and the description of the property on these documents did not relate to the respondent’s property.</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:200%" xml:lang="EN-US">            The court’s order in HC 1430/17 is couched as follows:</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:72px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-18.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">“1. That the defendant shall immediately vacate the remaining extent of Lot “B” Lower Rangemore, Umguza.</span></span></span></span></p> <ol start="2"><li class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Failing the above, the Sheriff of Zimbabwe or his lawful deputy shall evict the defendant from the remaining extent of Lot “B” Lower Rangemore, Umguza.”</span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:200%" xml:lang="EN-US">The applicant appealed against this judgment and on the date of hearing sought to withdraw the appeal.  The withdrawal was premised on the realization that the judgment in HC 1430/17 was unassailable as the applicant, with hindsight, appreciated that the documents he possessed did not authorize him to occupy the land from which he was to be evicted.</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:200%" xml:lang="EN-US">            The appeal was subsequently dismissed after the Supreme Court held that it was already seized with the matter and so declined to dispose of it on the basis of a withdrawal.  The dismissal was on 17<sup>th</sup> November 2021.</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:200%" xml:lang="EN-US">The applicant had, in the meantime, sought to regularize his occupation of the piece of land and under HC 571/21 obtained the following order from T</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:200%">AKUVA</span></span><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:200%" xml:lang="EN-US"> J.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">“1.       The respondent be and is hereby ordered to immediately furnish applicant with a certificate of registration for 1 x 150 blocks of quarry at the remaining extent Lot “B” Rangemore, Umguza, over the area specified on the survey report dated 30<sup>th</sup> November 2016.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">2.         The applicant, after receipt of the certificate of registration referred to in (1) above, be and is hereby authorized to resume mining activities on the 1 x 150 block of quarry at the remaining extent Lot “B” Rangemore, Umguza on the area specified on the survey report dated 30<sup>th</sup> November 2016.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            3.         No order as to costs.”</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:200%" xml:lang="EN-US">            This order was granted against the Provincial Mining Director and effectively addressed the issue which had led to the decision in HC 1430/17.  The applicant upon granting of the certificate of registration, would now have the authority which he hitherto did not have resulting in his eviction under HC 1430/17.</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:200%" xml:lang="EN-US">            The Provincial Mining Director, in compliance with the order in HC 571/21 proceeded to grant the applicant the certificate of registration 025192BA on 29 November 2021.</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:200%" xml:lang="EN-US">            Following the granting of this certificate of registration, applicant’s legal practitioners wrote to the respondent’s legal practitioners advising them of this development and further drawing their attention to the fact that, that which the applicant did not have at the time an order for his eviction was granted in HC 1430/17 he now had.  This letter is dated 30<sup>th</sup> November 2021.  On receipt of that letter the respondent obtained a writ of ejectment on 2<sup>nd</sup> December 2021 seeking to have the applicant evicted in terms of the order in HC 1430/17.</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:200%" xml:lang="EN-US">            The applicant subsequently filed an urgent chamber application under HC 1925/21 in which he sought an interdict against his eviction pending the determination of the matter relating to his authority to be on the land in question.  The gist of that application was that the order in HC 1430/17 was a <i>brutum fulmen</i> as it had been overtaken by events and the final order sought to declare it so.</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:200%" xml:lang="EN-US">            The application was placed before MOYO J who raised the following as a query.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">“I decline to hear the matter on the basis of urgency because the execution of an extant order of court cannot be interfered with except if the order is being challenged either by a rescission or an appeal.  I cannot stop the execution of a lawful order of court which applicant calls a <i>brutum fulmen</i> as that order stands until set aside by a competent court.”</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:200%" xml:lang="EN-US">            At the time of the hearing of this current application this query had not been communicated to the parties.</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:200%" xml:lang="EN-US">            Counsel for the respondent proceeded to submit that the applicant had filed a similar application and had failed to disclose material facts in the current application and so the application should be struck off the roll as an earlier similar application had been heard and dismissed. Counsel did not have a copy of the judgment nor the order.</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:200%" xml:lang="EN-US">            <i>Mr. Tavengwa</i>, for the applicant, expressed ignorance of that development and an adjournment was granted so the correct position could be verified.  It was then that it turned out that the judge had not granted an order but raised a query which was yet to be communicated to the parties. The file was not with Registry but with the secretaries who were yet to type the judge’s handwritten query which was stapled on the inside cover of the file. It became clear that the application had not been heard and the parties had not appeared before the judge.</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:200%" xml:lang="EN-US">            In the meantime a notice of withdrawal had been filed on 13<sup>th</sup> December 2021.  Based on the handwritten query by the judge and the date on the typed query, such withdrawal appears to have been made before the judge’s query was communicated to the parties.</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:200%" xml:lang="EN-US">            In her response to the application I am seized with, <i>Ms. Sibanda</i> submitted that the High Court judgment under HC 1430/17 became a Supreme Court judgment upon the dismissal of the appeal on 17<sup>th</sup> November 2021.</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:200%" xml:lang="EN-US">            Counsel further submitted that applicant must first have HC 1430/17 vacated as it is extant and further that in HC 1925/21 M</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:200%">OYO</span></span><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:200%" xml:lang="EN-US"> J heard and dismissed a similar application based on same facts.  The applicant could therefore not seek to bring the same application back before a different judge.</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:200%" xml:lang="EN-US">            Before I called for HC 1925/21 I was of the view that the applicant was seeking to have the same matter adjudicated over by a different judge in the hope that he would get a different outcome.</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:200%" xml:lang="EN-US">            However, a reading of HC 1925/21 showed that no hearing was conducted and before the judge’s query was communicated to the parties, the applicant withdrew the application.  I must say I find nothing amiss with an applicant who withdraws a matter before a determination is made.</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:200%" xml:lang="EN-US">            The learned judge in HC 1925/21 appears to have invoked rule 60 subrule 15 of the High Court Rules, SI 202 of 2021 which provide that:</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">“In determining the fate of a chamber application, a judge may raise such queries as he or she may consider pertinent to the disposal of the application.”</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:200%" xml:lang="EN-US">            The rules do not preclude the withdrawal of a matter where a query has been raised and a party in addressing such query decides to withdraw the matter.  There is also no legal impediment to a filing of a fresh application attending to or addressing the queries so raised.</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:200%" xml:lang="EN-US">I am of the view that no determination was made in HC1925/21 because there is no court order. There was no definitive order made, either striking the matter off the roll or dismissing it as had been submitted by counsel for the respondent. I am fortified in saying so because the Registrar eventually communicated with the parties and such communication was couched as follows:</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:200%" xml:lang="EN-US">“I refer to your chamber application which was placed before the Honourable Justice Moyo who commented as follows……………...”</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:200%" xml:lang="EN-US">The comment is as already captured elsewhere in this judgment.</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:200%" xml:lang="EN-US">            It is therefore not correct that the application in HC 1925/21 was heard and dismissed.  The argument that the current application should therefore suffer a still birth is, in the circumstances, misplaced.</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:200%" xml:lang="EN-US">            The following facts are therefore not in dispute:</span></span></span></span></p> <ol><li style="text-align:justify; margin-left:8px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:200%" xml:lang="EN-US">Under HC 1430/17 the applicant did not have the requisite authority to be on the respondent’s land.</span></span></span></span></li> <li style="text-align:justify; margin-left:8px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:200%" xml:lang="EN-US">The applicant was ordered to vacate the respondent’s property by a judgment handed down on 21 May 2020.</span></span></span></span></li> <li style="text-align:justify; margin-left:8px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:200%" xml:lang="EN-US">An appeal was noted against this judgment which counsel with hindsight sought to withdraw but was however dismissed by the Supreme Court on 17 November 2021.</span></span></span></span></li> <li style="text-align:justify; margin-left:8px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:200%" xml:lang="EN-US">Both HC 1430/17 and the Supreme Court decision were not concerned with the certificate of registration subsequently obtained by the applicant post these decisions. </span></span></span></span></li> <li style="text-align:justify; margin-left:8px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:200%" xml:lang="EN-US">HC 527/21 compelled the Provincial Mining Director to grant the applicant authority to be on the land and upon such issuance of the requisite authority, allowed applicant to resume mining operations on that land.</span></span></span></span></li> <li style="text-align:justify; margin-left:8px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:200%" xml:lang="EN-US">HC 527/21 is extant and the certificate of registration issued in compliance with the order in HC 527/21 has not been impugned.</span></span></span></span></li> <li style="text-align:justify; margin-left:8px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:200%" xml:lang="EN-US">The respondent did not seek the eviction of the applicant until after the applicant had regularized his occupation of the land in question by virtue of the certificate of registration issued by the Provincial Mining Director.</span></span></span></span></li> <li style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px; margin-left:8px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:200%" xml:lang="EN-US">The present application seeks to stop the eviction pending the return date when the issue of the certificate of registration and its validity will be ventilated.</span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:24px; text-align:justify; text-indent:18.0pt; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:200%" xml:lang="EN-US">From the foregoing the point <i>in limine</i> raised by counsel for the respondent has no merit.</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:200%" xml:lang="EN-US">This application was lodged on 13<sup>th</sup> December 2021 after the withdrawal of the one lodged on 8<sup>th</sup> December 2021.  The applicant came to know of the impending eviction on 7<sup>th</sup> December 2021.  There is no doubt the application to halt the impending eviction was made without undue delay.  When the need to act arose, the applicant promptly acted <i>(Kuvarega</i> v <i>Registrar General and Anor</i> 1998 (1) ZLR 188).</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:200%" xml:lang="EN-US">A failure by the court to act would justify the applicant dismissively suggesting “… that it should not bother to act subsequently as the position would have become irreversible and irreversibly so to the prejudice of the applicant.”  (<i>Documents Support Centre P/L</i> v <i>Mapuvire</i> 2006 (2) ZLR 240)</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:200%" xml:lang="EN-US">The basis for this application is hinged on the acquisition of the requisite authority to occupy the land which was obtained following the order granted under HC 527/21.  It therefore cannot be said the gist and argument <i>in casu</i> is the same as in HC 1925/21, which application was, in any event, withdrawn.</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:200%" xml:lang="EN-US">Counsel for the respondent did not address the court on the merits of the matter.  An invitation to counsel to address the court on the merits was turned down.  It follows therefore that the submissions made on the merits were not challenged. There is therefore nothing to controvert the applicant’s averment that the Registration Certificate granted on 29 November 2021 authorises him to occupy the land in question, for mining purposes.</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:200%" xml:lang="EN-US">The applicant managed to establish a prima facie right which was about to be infringed by the impending eviction.  The applicant submitted that he has heavy machinery on the land which cannot be easily moved and stored elsewhere.  He has nowhere to keep that machinery and he has invested in this mining operation with families eking out a living from such operation.  Eviction by its very nature is disruptive and may also result in damage to property. It therefore cannot be disputed that the fear of irreparable harm is real. More so as this eviction would seek to dismantle operations that have been in existence since 2017, albeit without authority, before the granting of the order in HC 527/21.</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:200%" xml:lang="EN-US">The applicant sought to engage the respondent so they could find common ground but such overtures were seemingly spurned as the response came in the form of a warrant of ejectment.</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:200%" xml:lang="EN-US">There is therefore no other alternative remedy available to the applicant except the granting of the interim relief so as to halt the eviction.</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:200%" xml:lang="EN-US">The balance of convenience favours the granting of the interim relief.  The facts already canvassed are supportive of this finding as the applicant is likely to be prejudiced if evicted whereas the respondent had the judgment in HC 1430/17 for more than a year and had not sought to execute it until receipt of the letter dated 30th November 2021.</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:200%" xml:lang="EN-US">The requirements for an interim interdict were therefore met (<i>Gold Reef Mining (Pty) Ltd</i> v <i>Mnjiva Consulting Engineers (Pty) Ltd &amp; Anor</i> HH-631-15)</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:24px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:200%" xml:lang="EN-US">      In the result I make the following order:</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:200%" xml:lang="EN-US">“1. Pending the return date, the execution of the writ of eviction under HC 1430/17 issued on 2<sup>nd</sup> December 2021 by the Registrar of the High Court be and is hereby stayed.</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:200%" xml:lang="EN-US">2.The 2<sup>nd</sup> respondent be and is hereby interdicted from ejecting the applicant from remaining extent Lot “B” Lower Rangemore, Umguza as per the notice of removal dated 7<sup>th</sup> December 2021.”</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;MutTimes New Roman&quot;,serif">Mutuso, Taruvinga &amp; Mhiribidi</span></span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;MutTimes New Roman&quot;,serif">, applicant’s legal practitioners</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;MutTimes New Roman&quot;,serif">Messrs. Vundhla-Phulu &amp; Partners</span></span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;MutTimes New Roman&quot;,serif">, respondent’s legal practitioners</span></span></span></span></p></span></div></div> </div> </div> Thu, 12 May 2022 12:23:44 +0000 Sandra Muengwa 12473 at http://www.zimlii.org Sibambane Traders Association v Findley Investments (Pvt) Ltd and 8 Others (17 of 2022) [2022] ZWBHC 17 (20 January 2022); http://www.zimlii.org/zw/judgment/bulawayo-high-court/2022/17 <span class="field field--name-title field--type-string field--label-hidden">Sibambane Traders Association v Findley Investments (Pvt) Ltd and 8 Others (17 of 2022) [2022] ZWBHC 17 (20 January 2022);</span> <div class="field field--name-field-flynote field--type-entity-reference field--label-above"> <div class="field__label">Flynote</div> <div class='field__items'> <div class="field__item"><a href="/taxonomy/term/1636" hreflang="en">Execution of Orders</a></div> <div class="field__item"><a href="/taxonomy/term/1657" hreflang="en">Stay of Execution</a></div> <div class="field__item"><a href="/taxonomy/term/2269" hreflang="x-default">Urgent Application</a></div> </div> </div> <span class="field field--name-uid field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden"><span>Sandra Muengwa</span></span> <span class="field field--name-created field--type-created field--label-hidden">Thu, 05/12/2022 - 11:02</span> <div class="field field--name-field-files field--type-file field--label-above"> <div class="field__label">Download</div> <div class='field__items'> <div class="field__item"> <span class="file file--mime-application-vnd-openxmlformats-officedocument-wordprocessingml-document file--x-office-document"> <a href="https://media.zimlii.org/files/judgments/zwbhc/2022/17/2022-zwbhc-17.docx" type="application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document; length=27012">2022-zwbhc-17.docx</a></span> </div> <div class="field__item"> <span class="file file--mime-application-pdf file--application-pdf"> <a href="https://media.zimlii.org/files/judgments/zwbhc/2022/17/2022-zwbhc-17.pdf" type="application/pdf; length=408627">2022-zwbhc-17.pdf</a></span> </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-body field--type-text-with-summary field--label-hidden field__item"><p align="right" class="MsoHeader" style="text-align:right"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">HB 17/22</span></span></span></span></p> <p align="right" class="MsoHeader" style="text-align:right"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">HC 1956/21</span></span></span></span></p> <p align="right" class="MsoHeader" style="text-align:right"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">XREF HC 1951/21</span></span></span></span></p> <p align="right" class="MsoHeader" style="text-align:right"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">XREF HC 774/17</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><b>SIBAMBENE TRADERS ASSOCIATION</b></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><b>Versus</b></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><b>FINDLEY INVESTMENTS (PVT) LTD</b></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><b>And</b></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><b>MPUMELELO INVESTMENTS (PVT) LTD</b></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><b>And</b></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><b>THE SHERIFF OF ZIMBABWE</b></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><b>And</b></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><b>NHLANHLA DUBE</b></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><b>And</b></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><b>OLIVER MAPENZAUSWA</b></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><b>And</b></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><b>DROSILLA SIMELA</b></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><b>And</b></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><b>MORIA SIBANDA</b></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><b>And</b></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><b>THEMBI KHUMALO</b></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><b>And</b></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><b>HAPPINESS SIBANDA</b></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">IN THE HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE</span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">NDLOVU J</span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">BULAWAYO 20 AND 21 DECEMBER 2021 AND 20 JANUARY 2022</span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><b>Urgent Chamber Application</b></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><i>N. Sithole</i>, for the applicant</span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><i>Mrs N. Mathumbu</i>, for the 1<sup>st</sup> respondent</span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">No appearance for the 2<sup>nd</sup>, 3<sup>rd</sup>, 5<sup>th</sup> and 6<sup>th</sup> respondents</span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">4<sup>th</sup>, 7<sup>th</sup>, 8<sup>th</sup> and 9<sup>th</sup> respondents in person</span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">NDLOVU J:</span></span></span></b><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"> This is an Urgent Chamber Application.  It was lodged in this court on 15 December 2021 at 1143 hours.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The interim and final relief sought have been formulated as follows by the applicant.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">THE INTERIM ORDER GRANTED</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">(1)        Pending the return date, the execution of the amended court order in the case undercover of case number HC 774/17 be and is hereby stayed with immediate effect.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">(2)        1<sup>st</sup> and 3<sup>rd</sup> respondents be and are hereby interdicted and prohibited from undertaking or continuing to undertake processes and procedures towards the full execution of the amended court order in HC 774/17.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">TERMS OF THE FINAL ORDER SOUGHT</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">(1)        Pending the determination of applicant’s application for rescission of the amended court order in HC 774/17, 1<sup>st</sup> and 3<sup>rd</sup> respondents be and are hereby interdicted and prohibited from commencing to execute, or executing or continuing to execute the amended court order on HC 774/17.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">(2)        1<sup>st</sup> respondent be and is hereby ordered to pay the costs of this application on an attorney and client scale.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">SERVICE OF THE PROVISIONAL ORDER</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <ol><li style="margin-left:56px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The applicant’s legal practitioners, assignees or agents be and is hereby authorised to effect service of application and provisional order on the respondents.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The application is opposed by the 1<sup>st</sup> respondent</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"> </p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"> </p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">BACKGROUND FACTS</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">On 17 February 2017 the 1<sup>st</sup> respondent undercover of case number HC 774/17 issued out summons out of this court against the 2<sup>nd</sup> respondent (a company in terms of the Zimbabwean laws) and 4<sup>th</sup> – 9<sup>th</sup> respondents.  On 13 February 2019 the parties to HC 774/17 settled the issues between them by way of consent.  Applicant, (a common law universitas) was not a party in HC 774/17.  In November 2021 1<sup>st</sup> respondent sought and obtained an amendment of the court order it obtained by consent in HC 774/17 on 13 February 2019.  Of relevance is that in that amended court order applicant became 2<sup>nd</sup> respondent’s trade name.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">This development sprung the applicant into action and undercover of case number HC 1951/21 filed an application for rescission of the amended court order in HC 774/17 in this court on 15 December 2021 at 0907 hours having become aware of the amended court order on 30 November 2021 when it was served with the writ of ejectment and warrant of ejectment by the 3<sup>rd</sup> respondent.  Applicant’s grievance is that 1<sup>st</sup> respondent’s conduct amounted to fraud as applicant was never party to the proceedings in HC 774/17.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">It is worthy noting that alive to the danger lurking in its vicinity as the clock had started ticking towards its imminent eviction, the applicant having filed its application for rescission quickly followed that with filing this Urgent Chamber Application for stay of execution, on the same day 2 hours and 36 minutes later, to be precise.  On the same day, 15 December 2021, and at 1210 hours and 1215 hours the applicant’s legal practitioners served on the 3<sup>rd</sup> respondent and the legal practitioners for the 1<sup>st</sup> respondent this Urgent Chamber Application respectively, among other respondents.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">In the morning noon on 17 December 2021 a Friday, it was brought to my attention that my sister K</span></span></span><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:10.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">ABASA J </span></span></span><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">who was on duty could not hear this application for one reason or the other and I duly undertook to hear the parties on Monday 20 December 2021 at 1100 hours.  Notices of Set Down were duly served on the parties that very day 17 December 2021 in particular the 1<sup>st</sup> respondent’s legal practitioners at 1546 hours and the 3<sup>rd</sup> respondent at 1640 hours.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">THE HEARING</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            The application could not be heard on Monday 20 December 2021 at 1100 hours due to the fact that 1<sup>st</sup> respondent’s representative who was clothed with the authority to depose to the opposition affidavit was coming from Harare and had failed to be in Bulawayo on time to swear to the opposition affidavit due to circumstances beyond his control.  By consent the matter was postponed to 21 December 2021 at 1100 hours.  The postponement was also to enable the parties to try  to find each other and possibly settle out of court.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            1<sup>st</sup> respondent filed its Notice of Opposition on Monday 20 December 2021 at 1423 hours in which an indication was made that this application for stay of execution had been overtaken by events.  It appears for undisclosed reasons, the parties did not find each other between Monday 1100 hours and Tuesday 1100 hours.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            At the hearing on Tuesday 21 December 2021 <i>Mr Sithole</i> for the applicant made the following submissions:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">(a)        That the applicant and the 1<sup>st</sup> respondent are distinct bodies who are interrelated and interdependent through a Memorandum of Understanding. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">(b)        As things stood then applicant has not been evicted from the premises in question.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">(c)        The eviction had already started and was eminent and was due to be completed.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Mrs Mathumbu</span></span></span></i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"> for the 1<sup>st</sup> respondent in her oral submissions reiterated that the application had been overtaken by events as the evictions had commenced and had been completed and the keys handed over to her client’s representative.  She submitted that some of applicant’s members broke locks and returned into the premises.  To that end she produced and tendered the return of service from Sheriff for Zimbabwe which bears the following remarks:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">“Ejectment of defendants and all those claiming occupation thorough him were successfully executed.  Ejectment done in the presence of Police Officers at (sic) Central Police Station Bulawayo escorting the Sheriff.  Ejectment completed at 1051 hours.  Keys handed over to Mathias Matenhabundo …...”</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The date action was taken is given as 17 December 2021.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Mr Sithole</span></span></span></i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"> in answer submitted that some members belonging to the applicant have been evicted and locked out but others are still inside the premises with their wares going on to say that it is the 2<sup>nd</sup> respondent who has been evicted and not the applicant.  He also told the court that the area concerned is degenerating into a “war” zone.  He implored the court to decide the matter on the papers filed of record and ignore the Sheriff’s Return of Service.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">CONTEXTUALISATION OF THE FACTS</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">While aware of the Application for Rescission under case number HC 1951/21 and this Urgent Chamber Application and having been served with the Urgent Chamber Application the 3<sup>rd</sup> respondent proceeded with the execution 2 days later and the 1<sup>st</sup> respondent, while so aware of these two applications did nothing to stop the 3<sup>rd</sup> respondent from carrying out the evictions on 17 December 2021.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">THE LAW</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Mr Sithole</span></span></span></i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"> has asked the court to ignore the Sheriff’s return of service and have said some of his client’s members are still within the premises in question.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">M</span></span></span><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:10.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">ALABA DCJ</span></span></span><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"> (as he then was) had the following to say in <i>Nyamutata </i>v <i>Chikomo and</i> <i>2 Others</i> SC 24-11.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">“The rules of the High Court clearly provide that a Return of Service by the Deputy Sheriff is <i>prima facie</i> evidence of process having been effected on the person for whom it is intended.” </span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">To ignore the Return of Service and its contents, as submitted by <i>Mr Sithole</i> will be to ignore relevant reality and unproductively perpetuate litigation, albeit it being tendered so late in the proceedings.  I decline to ignore the Sheriff’s return of service and its contents.   Based on the return of service by the Sheriff, probability leans towards <i>Mrs Mathumbu’s</i> submission that those applicant’s members who are said to be in the premises in question gained entry by breaking locks after the Sheriff had evicted them.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">In <i>Ndlovu</i> v <i>The Officer Commanding Zimbabwe Republic Police – Bulawayo</i> <i>Province</i> <i>and Others</i> (HC 618/10) (2010) ZWBHC 100 (8 September 2010) C</span></span></span><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:10.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">HEDA J</span></span></span><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"> remarked as follows:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">“Generally all litigants are expected to <u>await the finalisation</u> of a matter before the court.” (my emphasis)</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">C</span></span></span><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:10.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">HIWESHE JP </span></span></span><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">(as he then was) had the following to say in <i>Anglican Church of The</i> <i>Province of Zimbabwe</i> v <i>Anglican Church for the Province of Central Africa and the Deputy</i> <i>Sheriff </i> HH 451-12.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">“I must at this stage state that it is the practice, custom and tradition of this court that when an urgent matter has been set down, <u>it suspends execution until the matter is heard.” </u> (my emphasis)</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">D</span></span></span><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:10.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">UBE-BANDA J</span></span></span><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"> took it further and stated as follows in <i>Livetouch Investments</i> v <i>Philcool Investments and Sheriff of The High Court of Zimbabwe</i> HB 173-20.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">“I take the view that <u>once the Sheriff has been served with an application for stay of</u> <u>execution while awaiting set down, must not proceed with execution.”</u> (my emphasis)</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">I associate myself fully with the law as expressed by this court in the cases cited above.  My view is that to do otherwise renders the hearing and determination of the application long after the proverbial horse has bolted, effectively academic.  The conduct of both the 1<sup>st</sup> and 3<sup>rd</sup> respondents in this matter individually or collectively must be frowned upon.  It is always the best way to handle litigation that it be finalised once and for all preferably on the merits as opposed to other means.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">For all intents and purposes an order staying execution of an earlier court order is an interdict.  The requirements for an interdict, interim and final apply.  One of the requirements for a stay of execution order is the consideration of the balance of convenience as it relates to granting or not granting the order sought.  The question that naturally arises now that the evictions have been carried out and the keys handed over to the 1<sup>st</sup> respondent is, does the balance of convenience favour restoring occupation to the applicant’s members?</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">I have in a measure avoided delving deeper into the contents of the papers filed and oral arguments made for the simple reason that the bulk of those tended to address the issue of rescission more than the stay of execution and I am deliberately avoiding unnecessarily commenting on those, lest I comment on a matter that is not before me.   Having said that, the salient facts of this matter are that the individuals involved in 2<sup>nd</sup> respondent are also members of the applicant.  It was submitted without a contradiction that applicant or its members were occupying the premises in issue through 2<sup>nd</sup> respondent who is the lease holder with the 1<sup>st</sup> respondent.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">It is trite that a court must deal with a controversy that is live and not one that is moot.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">“The position of the law is that if the dispute becomes academic by reason of changed circumstances the court’s jurisdiction ceases and the case becomes moot …..” per M</span></span></span><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:10.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">ALABA </span></span></span><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">CJ in <i>Khuphe &amp; Anor</i> v <i>Parliament of Zimbabwe and Others</i> CCZ 20/19.  See also: <i>Zimbabwe School Examinations Council</i> v <i>Makomeka and Another</i> SC 10-20.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">I am of the opinion that there is no longer a live controversy in this matter and the balance of convenience does not favour restoring occupation to members of applicant.  Whether or not the applicant was claiming occupation through 2<sup>nd</sup> respondent whose eviction and all those who claim through it is not under any cloud of controversy.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">COSTS</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">It is traditional that costs follow the cause.  However that position is not cast on stone and each case must be dealt with on its peculiar circumstances alive of course to the general approach.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The conduct of 1<sup>st</sup> and 3<sup>rd</sup> respondents fell rather short of what one would expect from an officer of this court in the position of the 3<sup>rd</sup> respondent.  Such conduct overloads this court with application after application especially in cases where the execution is say against property.  Matters are better permanently finalised that their finalisation deferred.  As for the 1<sup>st</sup> respondent, its conduct was akin to attempting to defeat the applications and unfairly pre-empt the court.  This calls for censure.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">DISPOSITION</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">It is therefore ordered as follows:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">(1)        The application for stay of execution of the amended court order in the case undercover of case number HC 774/17 be and is hereby dismissed.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">(2)        1<sup>st</sup> respondent be and is hereby ordered to pay the costs of this application to the applicant on an attorney and client scale.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><i>Ncube Attorneys</i>, applicant’s legal practitioners</span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><i>Messrs Moyo and Nyoni</i>, 1<sup>st</sup> respondent’s legal practitioners</span></span></p> </div> <div class="views-element-container"><div class="view view-eva view-download-conditional view-id-download_conditional view-display-id-entity_view_1 js-view-dom-id-cc5e83046cd0d21801637662633e7c3051e9f1ea3c4edccf96b99beed418d021"> <div><div class="views-field views-field-views-conditional-field"><span class="field-content"><p align="right" class="MsoHeader" style="text-align:right"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">HB 17/22</span></span></span></span></p> <p align="right" class="MsoHeader" style="text-align:right"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">HC 1956/21</span></span></span></span></p> <p align="right" class="MsoHeader" style="text-align:right"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">XREF HC 1951/21</span></span></span></span></p> <p align="right" class="MsoHeader" style="text-align:right"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">XREF HC 774/17</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><b>SIBAMBENE TRADERS ASSOCIATION</b></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><b>Versus</b></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><b>FINDLEY INVESTMENTS (PVT) LTD</b></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><b>And</b></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><b>MPUMELELO INVESTMENTS (PVT) LTD</b></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><b>And</b></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><b>THE SHERIFF OF ZIMBABWE</b></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><b>And</b></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><b>NHLANHLA DUBE</b></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><b>And</b></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><b>OLIVER MAPENZAUSWA</b></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><b>And</b></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><b>DROSILLA SIMELA</b></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><b>And</b></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><b>MORIA SIBANDA</b></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><b>And</b></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><b>THEMBI KHUMALO</b></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><b>And</b></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><b>HAPPINESS SIBANDA</b></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">IN THE HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE</span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">NDLOVU J</span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">BULAWAYO 20 AND 21 DECEMBER 2021 AND 20 JANUARY 2022</span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><b>Urgent Chamber Application</b></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><i>N. Sithole</i>, for the applicant</span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><i>Mrs N. Mathumbu</i>, for the 1<sup>st</sup> respondent</span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">No appearance for the 2<sup>nd</sup>, 3<sup>rd</sup>, 5<sup>th</sup> and 6<sup>th</sup> respondents</span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">4<sup>th</sup>, 7<sup>th</sup>, 8<sup>th</sup> and 9<sup>th</sup> respondents in person</span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">NDLOVU J:</span></span></span></b><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"> This is an Urgent Chamber Application.  It was lodged in this court on 15 December 2021 at 1143 hours.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The interim and final relief sought have been formulated as follows by the applicant.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">THE INTERIM ORDER GRANTED</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">(1)        Pending the return date, the execution of the amended court order in the case undercover of case number HC 774/17 be and is hereby stayed with immediate effect.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">(2)        1<sup>st</sup> and 3<sup>rd</sup> respondents be and are hereby interdicted and prohibited from undertaking or continuing to undertake processes and procedures towards the full execution of the amended court order in HC 774/17.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">TERMS OF THE FINAL ORDER SOUGHT</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">(1)        Pending the determination of applicant’s application for rescission of the amended court order in HC 774/17, 1<sup>st</sup> and 3<sup>rd</sup> respondents be and are hereby interdicted and prohibited from commencing to execute, or executing or continuing to execute the amended court order on HC 774/17.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">(2)        1<sup>st</sup> respondent be and is hereby ordered to pay the costs of this application on an attorney and client scale.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">SERVICE OF THE PROVISIONAL ORDER</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <ol><li style="margin-left:56px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The applicant’s legal practitioners, assignees or agents be and is hereby authorised to effect service of application and provisional order on the respondents.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The application is opposed by the 1<sup>st</sup> respondent</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"> </p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"> </p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">BACKGROUND FACTS</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">On 17 February 2017 the 1<sup>st</sup> respondent undercover of case number HC 774/17 issued out summons out of this court against the 2<sup>nd</sup> respondent (a company in terms of the Zimbabwean laws) and 4<sup>th</sup> – 9<sup>th</sup> respondents.  On 13 February 2019 the parties to HC 774/17 settled the issues between them by way of consent.  Applicant, (a common law universitas) was not a party in HC 774/17.  In November 2021 1<sup>st</sup> respondent sought and obtained an amendment of the court order it obtained by consent in HC 774/17 on 13 February 2019.  Of relevance is that in that amended court order applicant became 2<sup>nd</sup> respondent’s trade name.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">This development sprung the applicant into action and undercover of case number HC 1951/21 filed an application for rescission of the amended court order in HC 774/17 in this court on 15 December 2021 at 0907 hours having become aware of the amended court order on 30 November 2021 when it was served with the writ of ejectment and warrant of ejectment by the 3<sup>rd</sup> respondent.  Applicant’s grievance is that 1<sup>st</sup> respondent’s conduct amounted to fraud as applicant was never party to the proceedings in HC 774/17.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">It is worthy noting that alive to the danger lurking in its vicinity as the clock had started ticking towards its imminent eviction, the applicant having filed its application for rescission quickly followed that with filing this Urgent Chamber Application for stay of execution, on the same day 2 hours and 36 minutes later, to be precise.  On the same day, 15 December 2021, and at 1210 hours and 1215 hours the applicant’s legal practitioners served on the 3<sup>rd</sup> respondent and the legal practitioners for the 1<sup>st</sup> respondent this Urgent Chamber Application respectively, among other respondents.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">In the morning noon on 17 December 2021 a Friday, it was brought to my attention that my sister K</span></span></span><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:10.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">ABASA J </span></span></span><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">who was on duty could not hear this application for one reason or the other and I duly undertook to hear the parties on Monday 20 December 2021 at 1100 hours.  Notices of Set Down were duly served on the parties that very day 17 December 2021 in particular the 1<sup>st</sup> respondent’s legal practitioners at 1546 hours and the 3<sup>rd</sup> respondent at 1640 hours.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">THE HEARING</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            The application could not be heard on Monday 20 December 2021 at 1100 hours due to the fact that 1<sup>st</sup> respondent’s representative who was clothed with the authority to depose to the opposition affidavit was coming from Harare and had failed to be in Bulawayo on time to swear to the opposition affidavit due to circumstances beyond his control.  By consent the matter was postponed to 21 December 2021 at 1100 hours.  The postponement was also to enable the parties to try  to find each other and possibly settle out of court.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            1<sup>st</sup> respondent filed its Notice of Opposition on Monday 20 December 2021 at 1423 hours in which an indication was made that this application for stay of execution had been overtaken by events.  It appears for undisclosed reasons, the parties did not find each other between Monday 1100 hours and Tuesday 1100 hours.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            At the hearing on Tuesday 21 December 2021 <i>Mr Sithole</i> for the applicant made the following submissions:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">(a)        That the applicant and the 1<sup>st</sup> respondent are distinct bodies who are interrelated and interdependent through a Memorandum of Understanding. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">(b)        As things stood then applicant has not been evicted from the premises in question.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">(c)        The eviction had already started and was eminent and was due to be completed.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Mrs Mathumbu</span></span></span></i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"> for the 1<sup>st</sup> respondent in her oral submissions reiterated that the application had been overtaken by events as the evictions had commenced and had been completed and the keys handed over to her client’s representative.  She submitted that some of applicant’s members broke locks and returned into the premises.  To that end she produced and tendered the return of service from Sheriff for Zimbabwe which bears the following remarks:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">“Ejectment of defendants and all those claiming occupation thorough him were successfully executed.  Ejectment done in the presence of Police Officers at (sic) Central Police Station Bulawayo escorting the Sheriff.  Ejectment completed at 1051 hours.  Keys handed over to Mathias Matenhabundo …...”</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The date action was taken is given as 17 December 2021.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Mr Sithole</span></span></span></i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"> in answer submitted that some members belonging to the applicant have been evicted and locked out but others are still inside the premises with their wares going on to say that it is the 2<sup>nd</sup> respondent who has been evicted and not the applicant.  He also told the court that the area concerned is degenerating into a “war” zone.  He implored the court to decide the matter on the papers filed of record and ignore the Sheriff’s Return of Service.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">CONTEXTUALISATION OF THE FACTS</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">While aware of the Application for Rescission under case number HC 1951/21 and this Urgent Chamber Application and having been served with the Urgent Chamber Application the 3<sup>rd</sup> respondent proceeded with the execution 2 days later and the 1<sup>st</sup> respondent, while so aware of these two applications did nothing to stop the 3<sup>rd</sup> respondent from carrying out the evictions on 17 December 2021.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">THE LAW</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Mr Sithole</span></span></span></i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"> has asked the court to ignore the Sheriff’s return of service and have said some of his client’s members are still within the premises in question.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">M</span></span></span><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:10.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">ALABA DCJ</span></span></span><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"> (as he then was) had the following to say in <i>Nyamutata </i>v <i>Chikomo and</i> <i>2 Others</i> SC 24-11.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">“The rules of the High Court clearly provide that a Return of Service by the Deputy Sheriff is <i>prima facie</i> evidence of process having been effected on the person for whom it is intended.” </span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">To ignore the Return of Service and its contents, as submitted by <i>Mr Sithole</i> will be to ignore relevant reality and unproductively perpetuate litigation, albeit it being tendered so late in the proceedings.  I decline to ignore the Sheriff’s return of service and its contents.   Based on the return of service by the Sheriff, probability leans towards <i>Mrs Mathumbu’s</i> submission that those applicant’s members who are said to be in the premises in question gained entry by breaking locks after the Sheriff had evicted them.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">In <i>Ndlovu</i> v <i>The Officer Commanding Zimbabwe Republic Police – Bulawayo</i> <i>Province</i> <i>and Others</i> (HC 618/10) (2010) ZWBHC 100 (8 September 2010) C</span></span></span><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:10.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">HEDA J</span></span></span><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"> remarked as follows:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">“Generally all litigants are expected to <u>await the finalisation</u> of a matter before the court.” (my emphasis)</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">C</span></span></span><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:10.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">HIWESHE JP </span></span></span><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">(as he then was) had the following to say in <i>Anglican Church of The</i> <i>Province of Zimbabwe</i> v <i>Anglican Church for the Province of Central Africa and the Deputy</i> <i>Sheriff </i> HH 451-12.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">“I must at this stage state that it is the practice, custom and tradition of this court that when an urgent matter has been set down, <u>it suspends execution until the matter is heard.” </u> (my emphasis)</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">D</span></span></span><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:10.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">UBE-BANDA J</span></span></span><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"> took it further and stated as follows in <i>Livetouch Investments</i> v <i>Philcool Investments and Sheriff of The High Court of Zimbabwe</i> HB 173-20.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">“I take the view that <u>once the Sheriff has been served with an application for stay of</u> <u>execution while awaiting set down, must not proceed with execution.”</u> (my emphasis)</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">I associate myself fully with the law as expressed by this court in the cases cited above.  My view is that to do otherwise renders the hearing and determination of the application long after the proverbial horse has bolted, effectively academic.  The conduct of both the 1<sup>st</sup> and 3<sup>rd</sup> respondents in this matter individually or collectively must be frowned upon.  It is always the best way to handle litigation that it be finalised once and for all preferably on the merits as opposed to other means.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">For all intents and purposes an order staying execution of an earlier court order is an interdict.  The requirements for an interdict, interim and final apply.  One of the requirements for a stay of execution order is the consideration of the balance of convenience as it relates to granting or not granting the order sought.  The question that naturally arises now that the evictions have been carried out and the keys handed over to the 1<sup>st</sup> respondent is, does the balance of convenience favour restoring occupation to the applicant’s members?</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">I have in a measure avoided delving deeper into the contents of the papers filed and oral arguments made for the simple reason that the bulk of those tended to address the issue of rescission more than the stay of execution and I am deliberately avoiding unnecessarily commenting on those, lest I comment on a matter that is not before me.   Having said that, the salient facts of this matter are that the individuals involved in 2<sup>nd</sup> respondent are also members of the applicant.  It was submitted without a contradiction that applicant or its members were occupying the premises in issue through 2<sup>nd</sup> respondent who is the lease holder with the 1<sup>st</sup> respondent.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">It is trite that a court must deal with a controversy that is live and not one that is moot.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">“The position of the law is that if the dispute becomes academic by reason of changed circumstances the court’s jurisdiction ceases and the case becomes moot …..” per M</span></span></span><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:10.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">ALABA </span></span></span><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">CJ in <i>Khuphe &amp; Anor</i> v <i>Parliament of Zimbabwe and Others</i> CCZ 20/19.  See also: <i>Zimbabwe School Examinations Council</i> v <i>Makomeka and Another</i> SC 10-20.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">I am of the opinion that there is no longer a live controversy in this matter and the balance of convenience does not favour restoring occupation to members of applicant.  Whether or not the applicant was claiming occupation through 2<sup>nd</sup> respondent whose eviction and all those who claim through it is not under any cloud of controversy.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">COSTS</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">It is traditional that costs follow the cause.  However that position is not cast on stone and each case must be dealt with on its peculiar circumstances alive of course to the general approach.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The conduct of 1<sup>st</sup> and 3<sup>rd</sup> respondents fell rather short of what one would expect from an officer of this court in the position of the 3<sup>rd</sup> respondent.  Such conduct overloads this court with application after application especially in cases where the execution is say against property.  Matters are better permanently finalised that their finalisation deferred.  As for the 1<sup>st</sup> respondent, its conduct was akin to attempting to defeat the applications and unfairly pre-empt the court.  This calls for censure.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">DISPOSITION</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">It is therefore ordered as follows:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">(1)        The application for stay of execution of the amended court order in the case undercover of case number HC 774/17 be and is hereby dismissed.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">(2)        1<sup>st</sup> respondent be and is hereby ordered to pay the costs of this application to the applicant on an attorney and client scale.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><i>Ncube Attorneys</i>, applicant’s legal practitioners</span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><i>Messrs Moyo and Nyoni</i>, 1<sup>st</sup> respondent’s legal practitioners</span></span></p></span></div></div> </div> </div> Thu, 12 May 2022 11:02:11 +0000 Sandra Muengwa 12470 at http://www.zimlii.org Sivan v Dera N.O and 3 Others (13 of 2022) [2022] ZWHHC 13 (12 January 2022); http://www.zimlii.org/zw/judgment/harare-high-court/2022/13 <span class="field field--name-title field--type-string field--label-hidden">Sivan v Dera N.O and 3 Others (13 of 2022) [2022] ZWHHC 13 (12 January 2022);</span> <div class="field field--name-field-flynote field--type-entity-reference field--label-above"> <div class="field__label">Flynote</div> <div class='field__items'> <div class="field__item"><a href="/taxonomy/term/1657" hreflang="en">Stay of Execution</a></div> <div class="field__item"><a href="/taxonomy/term/2295" hreflang="x-default">interdict sought as provisional relief (Urgent Application)</a></div> <div class="field__item"><a href="/taxonomy/term/2269" hreflang="x-default">Urgent Application</a></div> </div> </div> <span class="field field--name-uid field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden"><span>Sandra Muengwa</span></span> <span class="field field--name-created field--type-created field--label-hidden">Fri, 05/06/2022 - 06:50</span> <div class="field field--name-field-files field--type-file field--label-above"> <div class="field__label">Download</div> <div class='field__items'> <div class="field__item"> <span class="file file--mime-application-vnd-openxmlformats-officedocument-wordprocessingml-document file--x-office-document"> <a href="https://media.zimlii.org/files/judgments/zwhhc/2022/13/2022-zwhhc-13.docx" type="application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document; length=38566">2022-zwhhc-13.docx</a></span> </div> <div class="field__item"> <span class="file file--mime-application-pdf file--application-pdf"> <a href="https://media.zimlii.org/files/judgments/zwhhc/2022/13/2022-zwhhc-13.pdf" type="application/pdf; length=485312">2022-zwhhc-13.pdf</a></span> </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-body field--type-text-with-summary field--label-hidden field__item"><p class="text-align-right">HH 13-22</p> <p class="text-align-right">HC 6970-21</p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">OFER SIVAN</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">versus</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">ALEXIOUS DERA N.O.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">and</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">GILAD SHABTAI</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">and</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">MUNYARADZI GONYORA</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">and</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">MASTER OF THE HIGH COURT</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">WAMAMBO J</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">HARARE, 10 December, 2021 and 12 January, 2022</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Urgent Chamber Application</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Advocate T.N. Nyamakura</span></span></i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"> for the applicant</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">R. Dembure </span></span></i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">for the 1<sup>st</sup> respondent</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Advocate L.K. Mapuranga</span></span></i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"> for the 2<sup>nd</sup> and 3<sup>rd</sup> respondents</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">No appearance for the 4<sup>th</sup> respondent </span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">WAMAMBO J:          The applicant was on 29 November, 2021 granted a provisional order by M</span></span></span><span lang="EN-ZW" style="line-height:150%" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">USITHU</span></span><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"> J in case number HC 5436/21 (judgment ref HH 668/21) in an urgent application which the applicant had filed against the respondents herein, seeking relief as set out in the provisional order filed therewith. The provisional order which the applicant sought was couched as follows:-</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">“<b><i>INTERIM RELIEF GRANTED</i></b></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Pending determination of this matter, the applicant is granted the following relief.</span></span></span></i></span></span></span></p> <ol><li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The operation of a resolution executed by the first and second respondent dated 1<sup>st</sup> October, 2021 authorising the placing of Adlecraft Investments (Private) Limited under voluntary business rescue proceedings is suspended.</span></span></i></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The respondents are interdicted and restrained from implementing the terms of that resolution.</span></span></i></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:72px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"> </p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">TERMS OF THE FINAL ORDER SOUGHT </span></span></span></i></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">That you now show cause to this Honourable Court why a final order should not be made on the following terms:-</span></span></i></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT</span></span></span></i></span></span></span></p> <ol><li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The resolution dated 1<sup>st</sup> October, 2021 attached to this application marked “E” endorsed under CRP 3/21 is null and void.</span></span></i></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:72px; text-align:justify"> </p> <ol start="2"><li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Adlecraft Investments (Private) Limited has only issued 20 shares, all of which are currently owned by the applicant as 100 % shareholder.</span></span></i></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:48px"> </p> <ol start="3"><li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Consequent to the above declaration the following consequential relief will be sought.</span></span></i></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:48px"> </p> <ol><li style="list-style-type:none"> <ol><li style="margin-left:16px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">An order setting aside the resolution dated 1<sup>st</sup> October, 2021 under CRP 3/21.</span></span></i></span></span></span></li> </ol></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify"> </p> <ol><li style="list-style-type:none"> <ol start="2"><li style="margin-left:16px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">An order setting aside the appointment of fourth respondent as corporate rescue practitioner.</span></span></i></span></span></span></li> </ol></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:48px"> </p> <ol><li style="list-style-type:none"> <ol start="3"><li style="margin-left:16px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">An order interdicting and restraining the first respondent from representing himself out to the public or transacting on the perjured capacity of a holder of equity in Adlecraft Investments (Private) Limited.</span></span></i></span></span></span></li> </ol></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:48px"> </p> <ol><li style="list-style-type:none"> <ol start="4"><li style="margin-left:16px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The first and second respondents are ordered to pay the applicant’s costs on an attorney and own client scale.”</span></span></i></span></span></span></li> </ol></li> </ol><p style="margin-bottom:11px; margin-left:48px"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The provisional order granted by M</span></span></span><span lang="EN-ZW" style="line-height:150%" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">USITHU</span></span><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"> J appears on the last page of his judgment HH 668/21. The operative part of the order reads as follows:- <i>  </i></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">“<i>Resultantly it is ordered that:</i></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Pending the determination of this matter on the return date the applicant is granted the following interim relief:-</span></span></i></span></span></span></p> <ol><li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The operation of the circular resolution executed by the first and second respondents dated 1 October, 2021 authorising the placing of Adlecraft Investment (Private) Limited under voluntary business rescue proceedings is suspended.</span></span></i></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:72px; text-align:justify"> </p> <ol start="2"><li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The respondents are hereby interdicted from implementing the terms of the resolution.”</span></span></i></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-bottom:11px; margin-left:48px"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The first, second and fourth respondent were dissatisfied with the whole judgment of M</span></span></span><span lang="EN-ZW" style="line-height:150%" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">USITHU </span></span><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">J. They noted appeals in the nature of a combined notice of appeal in respect of the second and third respondents herein and the other notice of appeal in respect of the first respondent. The appeals are pending in the Supreme Court respectively as case numbers SC 462/21 and SC 463/21. They were filed on 30 November, 2021. The applicant consequent on the filing of the two appeals filed this application on 6 December, 2021.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The applicant prays for leave to execute M</span></span></span><span lang="EN-ZW" style="line-height:150%" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">USITHU</span></span><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"> J’s judgment number HC 668/21 pending the determination of the appeals. The details of the order sought by the appellant is set out in his draft order on pages 73 – 74 of the application as follows:- </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">“<i>1.       The application by the applicant for leave to execute the judgment of this Honourable Court granted on 29 November, 2021 as judgment number HH 668/21 pending the appeal against the judgment noted by the respondents</i> <i>under SC 462/21 and SC 463/21 be and is hereby granted.</i></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt"> </p> <p style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">2.        Consequently it is directed that the applicant be and is hereby granted leave to carry the judgment of this court in HH 668/21 into execution notwithstanding the appeals against it by the respondents.</span></span></i></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt"> </p> <ol start="3"><li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">     This order will lapse upon final conclusion of whichever appeal is determined first   </span></span></i></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:72px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">     between SC 462/21 and SC 463/21 </span></span></i></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:72px; text-align:justify"> </p> <ol start="4"><li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">    The costs of this application shall be paid by the respondent who apposes the </span></span></i></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:72px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">   application on the basis of costs following the cause. In the event that more than one       </span></span></i></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:72px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">  respondent opposed the application, then costs shall be borne jointly and severally, </span></span></i></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:72px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">  the one paying the other(s) to be absolved.”</span></span></i></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">In respect of the filed notices of appeal the grounds of appeal in case number SC 462/21 are stated as follows:-</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">“The court a quo erred at law by:-</span></span></i></span></span></span></p> <ol><li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Granting relief to the first respondent when such relief was unavailable to him as he lacked standing to sue for such relief since he is not a shareholder in the company over which he claimed relief and his status as a director did not grant standing.</span></span></i></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:72px; text-align:justify"> </p> <ol start="2"><li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Granting an interdict against conduct which was lawful and which was taken pursuant to statutory authority.</span></span></i></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:48px"> </p> <ol start="3"><li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Granting an interdict based on a non-existent cause of action as the Insolvency Act [Chapter 6:07] provided for the specific circumstances in which the court could intervene and the circumstances of this cases was one such.</span></span></i></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:48px"> </p> <ol start="4"><li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Granting relief to the first respondent whose application was beset by apparent and material falsehoods regarding the first respondent’s shareholding in the company over which he sought to assert rights. </span></span></i></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:48px"> </p> <ol start="5"><li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Finding that the interim relief sought could be granted even in the face of material falsehoods in the application because the material falsehoods became relevant on the return date.</span></span></i></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:48px"> </p> <ol start="6"><li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Granting an interdict which interfered with the internal affairs of the company on a matter involving what was a ratifiable wrong.</span></span></i></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:48px"> </p> <ol start="7"><li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Finding that the first respondent had shown a prima facie violation of section 196 of the Companies and Other Business Entities, Act [Chapter 24:31] where it had been shown that there was compliance with this provision of the law by the applicant”.</span></span></i></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-bottom:11px; margin-left:48px"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">In respect of case number SC 463/21 the grounds of appeal were stated as follows:- </span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">“<i>1.    The court a quo erred at law and grossly misdirected itself when it found contrary to</i></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">       the evidence on record that the 1<sup>st</sup> respondent had not approached the court with dirty</span></span></i></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">      hands</span></span></i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">.</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt"> </p> <p style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">2.    The court a quo erred at law and grossly misdirected itself in failing to find as it ought             </span></span></i></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:72px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">to have done that, it could not afford 1<sup>st</sup> respondent the relief he sought since such relief fell outside the scope of the remedies available in terms of section 132 and 123 of the Insolvency Act [Chapter 6:07].</span></span></i></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            3.    The court a quo erred at law and grossly misdirected itself in failing to appreciate that </span></span></i></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:72px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">without setting aside the certificate of appointment issue in favour of the appellant by the Master of High Court, any interdict granted against appellant would be null and void ab initio.</span></span></i></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i>            </i></span></span></span></p> <ol start="4"><li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The court a quo erred at law and grossly misdirected itself  in its adjudicative process when it held that 1<sup>st</sup> respondent had established a prima facie case entitling him to the interdictory relief that he sought.</span></span></i></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:72px; text-align:justify"> </p> <ol start="5"><li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">A fortiori the court a quo erred at law and grossly misdirected itself when it held that the corporate rescue proceedings a quo were premised on the assumption that the resolution founding the process was validly passed, yet such a final and definitive finding could only be made on a balance of probabilities and not a prima facie case”.</span></span></i></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The respondents opposed this application. At the hearing on 10 December, 2021 the parties legal practitioners made brief oral submissions where after it was agreed by the parties that they would file heads of argument. The application would then be determined on the filed papers. It is convenient to first briefly outline the law and the court’s approach to the determination of an application for leave to execute pending appeal. I will then consider the facts of the case and relate them to the law in determining the application.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The law and the courts approach to such an application are settled matters. Counsel for the parties in their heads of argument cited various authorities which include the following:-</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <ul><li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Dabengwa &amp; Anor v Minister of Home Affairs</span></span></span></i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"> 1982 (1) ZLR 223;</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Jeremy Prince (Pvt) Ltd</span></span></span></i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"> v <i>Owen and Anor</i> HH 14/86;</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Van T. Hoff</span></span></span></i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"> v <i>Van T. Hoff &amp; Ors </i>1988 (1) ZLR 335 (H)</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Net One Cellular (Pvt) Ltd</span></span></span></i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"> v <i>Net One Employees &amp; Anor</i> 2005 (1) ZLR 275 (S) at 281 A – D </span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ul><p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">In this regard, the case of <i>ARTUZ</i> v <i>ZANU PF</i> HMA 37/18 discusses the law and court’s approach in depth.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            In the case of <i>Jonga</i> v <i>Chabata &amp; Anor.</i> HH 276/2017 C</span></span></span><span lang="EN-ZW" style="line-height:150%" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">HATUKUTA </span></span><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">J (<i>as she then was</i>) aptly noted the law and court’s approach as set out in the authorities as follows at page 3 of the cyclostyled judgment; </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">‘<i>Turning to the merits of this application, the parties are agreed that it is trite that the noting of an appeal has the effect of suspending the operation of the judgment appealed against. Such judgment can only be executed with the leave of the court that granted it. The main guiding principle for the court in determining such an application is to grant leave where real and substantial justice requires such leave or conversely, where injustice would otherwise be done if leave is not granted. The court would also have regard to the prospects of success on appeal; the potentiality of irreparable harm or prejudice to the applicant of leave is not granted, the potentiality of irreparable harm to the first respondent if stay (sic) (it should be ‘leave’) and where there is the possibility of irreparable harm to both parties, the balance of hardship or inconvenience ......................... see also Zimbabwe Mining Development Corporation v African Resources PLC &amp; Ors. 2010 (2) ZLR 34 (S); Kawa v Musenda &amp; Ors. HB 108/14; Founders Building Society v Mazuka 2000 (1) ZLR 528 and Econet (Pvt) Ltd v Telecel Zimbabwe (Pvt) Ltd 1998 (1) ZLR 149 (HC) 154 H”.</i></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">From the judgment appealed against HH 668/21 read together with the judgment on points in limine number HH 650/21, the scenario which emerges is to all interests and purposes a battle for control of the company Adlecraft Investments (Pvt) Ltd. The battle is between the applicant and his co-directors, namely the second and third respondents. The first respondent fight is a different one. He was appointed by the fourth respondent to act as the corporate rescue practitioner for Adlecraft Investments (Pvt) Ltd. following the passing of a circular resolution for placement of the company under voluntary corporate rescue allegedly passed by the second and third respondents in their capacity as directors of Adlecraft Investments (Pvt) Ltd. The validity of the circular resolution was challenged by the applicant. The first respondents fight was to persuade the court to hold that his appointment as the corporate rescue practitioner was regular and should not be set aside. Ultimately, the principal issue which M</span></span></span><span lang="EN-ZW" style="line-height:150%" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">USITHU</span></span><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"> J had to decide was whether or not the applicant had on his papers established a <i>prima facie</i> case for the relief sought.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">In regard to the determination of M</span></span></span><span lang="EN-ZW" style="line-height:150%" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">USITHU </span></span><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">J, the learned judge acted in terms of the provisions of rule 60(9) which provides as follows:-</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">“(9)     where in an application for provisional order the judge is satisfied that the papers establish a prima facie case he or she shall grant a provisional order either in terms of the draft filed or as varied”.</span></span></i></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The question whether or not M</span></span></span><span lang="EN-ZW" style="line-height:150%" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">USITHU </span></span><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">J. made an error on law, fact or both in holding that the applicant’s papers established a <i>prima facie</i> case and consequently granting the provisional order is ultimately what the Supreme Court would have to determine. In terms of the quoted sub rule aforesaid, the judge is obliged to grant the provisional order as sought or as varied once the judge is satisfied that the applicant’s paper establish a <i>prima facie</i> case. Therefore in considering the proposed grounds of appeal, I must consider whether there are any prospects that the Supreme Court will find that M</span></span></span><span lang="EN-ZW" style="line-height:150%" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">USITHU </span></span><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">J. was misdirected to find that a <i>prima facie</i> case was established on the applicant’s papers. If the learned judge was not misdirected, then the proposed appeals have no prospects of success. This fact would then have to be considered together with other factors as already set out herein.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The facts of the matter as set out by M</span></span></span><span lang="EN-ZW" style="line-height:150%" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">USITHU </span></span><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">J. in both judgments HH 650/21 and HH 668/21 would appear not to be in dispute amongst the parties herein. The learned judge summarized the facts as that the applicant claimed to be the director of Adlecraft Investments (Private) Ltd as well as its sole shareholder. On the other hand the second respondent herein claimed to be the majority shareholder of the company through a company called Adlecraft Holdings (Pvt) Ltd which held all the shares in Adlecraft Investments (Pvt) Ltd. The second respondent claimed to be the sole director of the share holding company and by extension the majority shareholder in Adlecraft Investments (Pvt) Ltd.  </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The learned judge found that the second and third respondents claimed that the correct shareholding of Adlecraft Investments (Pvt) Ltd as at 29 August, 2018 excluded the applicant. They averred that the shareholding was as follows:-</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <ol style="list-style-type:lower-alpha"><li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Adlecraft Holdings (Pvt) Ltd – 49%</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Munyaradzi Gonyora (third respondent herein) – 10%</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Razaro Mapuwapuwa – 10% </span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Stephen Itai Mangoda – 10%</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Chance Chitima – 10% </span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Adlecraft Workers Trust – 11% </span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The second and third respondents claimed that the above shareholding structure was the one furnished to the Zimbabwe Investment Authority and thus was the correct shareholding of the company. The second and third respondents therefore disputed on that piece of evidence the applicant’s claim that he was the sole shareholder of Adlecraft. The learned judge also noted that the extant CR 14 listed four directors, namely the applicant, second and third respondents herein and one Claudius Nhemwa. The learned judge also noted that no CR 2 form was produced to confirm the shareholding of the applicant.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Significantly, M</span></span></span><span lang="EN-ZW" style="line-height:150%" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">USITHU </span></span><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">J. stated as follows on page 5 of judgement HH 668/21</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">‘<i>First and second respondents further claimed that a shareholders dispute existed between the parties. It had the potential to cause serious financial harm and for that reason there was need to entrust an independent third party with the affairs of the company to avoid further financial review. The applicant was allegedly running down the company. As the managing director, he had failed to repay the loans advances to the company</i>.</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">First and second respondents averred that the application was ill conceived as the corporate rescue process was under way. The court could not interdict a lawful process that was intended to save the company. More importantly the third respondent and the registrar of companies had accepted the resolution. The resolution was passed by the majority directors. The resolution was therefore not afflicted by any illegality as alleged. The court was urged to dismiss the application with costs on the legal practitioner.</span></span></i></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Fourth respondent’s case:</span></span></i></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Following the dismissal of its preliminary points, Mr Sithole for the fourth respondent advised that he would be abiding by the papers already filed of record. The fourth respondent insisted that his appointment as corporate rescue practitioner was confirmed by the third respondent through a certificate of appointment of 6 October, 2021. The grounds of his removal from his position were confined to those prescribed under section 132 of the Insolvency Act. At the time the applicant deposed to the founding affidavit, he was no longer a director of the company by virtue of section 130(2) of the Insolvency Act.</span></span></i></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The existence of a shareholder dispute necessitated the placing of the company under corporate rescue whilst the parties resolved their differences. The applicant had refused to co-operate with the corporate rescue practitioner. The fourth respondent prayed that the application be dismissed with costs on a higher scale”. </span></span></i></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">After setting out positions of the parties the learned judge on page 6 – 10 of judgment HH 668/21 considered the submissions of the parties. He noted that the second and third respondents herein had applied to produce a supplementary affidavit, to which they attached a shareholders agreements and share certificates allegedly signed by the applicant. The documents were retrieved from the Zimbabwe Investment Authority. The documents were retrieved by the first respondent herein from the Zimbabwe Investment Centre. The purpose of producing the documents was intended to show that the applicant lied about the shareholding status of the company in his founding affidavit when he deposed that he was the 100% shareholder of Adlecraft Investments (Pvt) Ltd.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The learned judge noted that the applicant’s response to the documents from the Zimbabwe Investment Authority was that the issue before the court concerned the applicant’s status as a director and not shareholder of Adlecraft Investments (Pvt) Ltd because it was a director’s disputed resolution which placed the company into voluntary business rescue. The court had to decide whether the disputed directors’ resolution was valid or not. The applicant averred that section 196(1) of the Companies and Other Business Entities Act [<i>Chapter 24 – 31</i>] was not complied with. The applicant averred that he was entitled to notice of the meeting of directors and to participate in the deliberations which resulted in the resolution to place the company under voluntary co-operate rescue. It was the applicant’s case that on the fact of it, section 196(1) of the Companies and Other Business Entities Act required that all directors of the company should participate in the making of the resolution as was reached in this case. The applicant averred that the court could well hold the resolution to be invalid and set it aside on the return date. The applicant averred that he was not given notice of the meeting and did not participate in the meeting. The applicant also submitted that there was no evidence of financial distress of the company pleaded by the second and third respondents as would have necessitated the placement of the company under corporate rescue in terms of the Insolvency Act [<i>Chapter 6:07</i>]. Applicant averred that no accounts were placed before the court to back up the claim that the company was in financial distress.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The applicant averred that the second respondent was not a shareholder of Adlecraft Investments (Pvt) Ltd. The second respondent was alleged to have lent money to the company. He was thereafter appointed as a non-executive director to safeguard his financial interest in the company. The applicant averred that the loan had been partly paid and that the second respondent had never participated in the management of the company’s affairs.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The next development as set out by the applicant and recorded by the learned judge was the making of a circular resolution of directors dated 1 October, 2021. The content of the resolution was recorded in the judgment as was the applicant’s response to it. In brief the resolution focussed that the company would “<i>likely experience financial distress within the next six (6) months arising from the shareholder disputes which have spilled into the courts of law and are crippling the company’s operations ....</i>”. The resolution then noted that the company had reasonable prospects of being rehabilitated successfully if placed under corporate rescue since the company had assets and business which if utilised properly would restore the company to a going concern status. The resolution appointed the first respondent herein as corporate rescue practitioner and the third respondent as the one to depose to a sworn statement on the company’s behalf on the status of the company as required by the operative provision of the Insolvency Act.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The applicant averred that he received the circular resolution by e-mail on 2 October, 2021. He was not given prior notice of the meeting which resulted in the resolution. He was not consulted by the second and third respondents on the issues arising from the resolution and did not therefore provide any input in the making of the resolution. He protested in his response to the resolution that the second and third respondents were acting in bad faith because they had purported to negotiate the settlement of a related case HC 4465/21 whilst at the same time engaging in the issue of corporate rescue without the knowledge of the applicant. The applicant indicated that the resolution had no legal basis. Further the applicant indicated that the company had no challenges which called for its placement under corporate rescue.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The applicant as noted by the learned judge on page 4 of judgment number HH 668/21 contended that the circular was irregular as no meeting was held. He noted that the resolution was not signed by all directors as required by law in circumstances where a formal meeting is dispensed with. The applicant contended that the company’s articles of association did not provide for circular resolutions.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The learned judge also noted the submission by the applicants counsel that section 196(i) of the Companies and Other Business Entities Act, required that each director should participate in the meeting called to deliberate on placement of the company under corporate rescue.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The learned judge noted the submission made by the second and third respondents that the applicant had stated material falsehoods. These related to the applicant deposing to facts which were inconsistent with documents retrieved from the Zimbabwe Investment Authority. The learned judge took note of the submission further made that because the applicant had told material lies in his affidavit he ought to be denied the relief which he sought. The learned judge further noted the submission made that the applicant had declined to sign the resolution and the court should not intervene unless the wrong committed was not ratifiable. Counsel’s contention that the applicant could still be outvoted on ratification of the omissions was noted by the learned judge. The learned judge also noted the second and third respondents’ submission that the non-compliance with the law was immaterial because the resolution would still have been passed by a properly constituted directors meeting. The learned judge also took note of the submission that the applicant ought to have brought his challenge as a derivative action because as a director he was disqualified from acting as director because of the corporate rescue status of the company. The learned judge noted that in relation to the absence of evidence on the company’s financial distress, the second and third respondents counsel had submitted that the true financial position of the company would be known after the first respondent herein had submitted his report on the company’s financial position.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The learned judge noted the response by the applicant’s counsel to allegations that the applicant deposed to material falsehoods. The response was that the issue was properly to be determined on the return date. The applicant also averred that the issue of falsity of depositions also arose in paragraph 9.5 of the first and second respondents’ affidavit wherein they stated that the company had four directors currently and that if that was so, then two directors could not have validly passed the resolution as was purportedly done.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">In his analysis the learned judge noted that the applicant was seeking a provisional order to suspend the operation of the circular resolution executed by the second and third respondents pending the determination of the matter on the return date. The applicant was also seeking on the return date, an order that he be declared the 100% shareholder in Adlecraft Investments (Pvt) Ltd.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The learned judge was directed to determine the application in terms of rule 60(9) of the High Court Rules. The learned judge quoted the rule <i>ex tenso</i> as I have already noted it herein. The learned judge noted in his judgment that the purpose of the provisional order or interlocutory injuction was as explained in the case of <i>Attorney General</i> v <i>Punch Limited and Anor</i> [2002] UKHL 50 where it stated:-</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">“<i>The purpose for which the court grants an interlocutory injuction can be stated quite simply. In American Cynamid Co v Ethicon (Pvt) Ltd [1975 AC 396, 405 D LORD DIPLOCK described it as remedy which is both temporary and discretionary. Its purpose is to regulate, and where possible, to preserve the rights of the parties pending the final determination of the matter which is in issue</i>”.  </span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The learned judge also stated the requirements that an applicant who seeks interim relief in the nature of a provisional order must establish. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The learned judge made a finding that the crux of the application was whether or not the circular resolution which purportedly placed the company into voluntary liquidation was valid. The matter turned upon the interpretation of the provisions of section 196(1) of the Companies and Other Business Entities Act which reads as follows:- </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">“<i>196    Directors acting other than in person at meeting  -</i></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"> </p> <ol><li style="margin-left:80px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">A decision that could be voted on at a meeting of the board of company may instead be adopted by written consent stating the action so taken, signed by all of the directors entitled to vote on the matter. A decision made in such matters is of the same effect as if it had been approved by voting at a meeting.</span></span></i></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:120px; text-align:justify"> </p> <ol start="2"><li style="margin-left:80px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">....................................”</span></span></span></i></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The learned judge made the following factual and legal findings as may be seen upon a reading of the cyclostyled judgment;</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <ol style="list-style-type:lower-alpha"><li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The applicant had established that he was a director of the company in issue and that the fact was not in dispute.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The applicant had petitioned the court as a director of the company and not as a shareholder and that the argument by the second and third respondents that the applicant should have instituted a derivative action fell away since the applicant was challenging the validity of a director’s resolution.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The applicant by reason of being a director had an interest in the company and that the second and third respondents had sent him the disputed circular resolution to sign because they accepted his interest in the company.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">That if the resolution was not passed in terms of the provisions of section 196(1) of the Companies and Other Business Entities Act [<i>Chapter 24;31</i>], then it was irregular and invalid, hence, it could not be ratified since an invalid act cannot be validated by ratification.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">That the argument that the applicant had lied in his affidavit on the shareholding structure of the company was an issue which went to the root of the final relief sought in regard to the claim for a declaration of 100% shareholding made by the applicant. The learned judge could not make such a finding at this stage since the parties presented different versions on the shareholding. The issue would be determined on the return date.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">That first respondent’s contention that the removal of the corporate rescue practitioner could only be made in terms of section 132 of the Insolvency Act missed the point which was that the challenge of the applicant was that the resolution placing the company under corporate rescue was invalid. If invalid, then it would follow that any act made based upon it would be invalid. The fourth respondent could only rely on the grounds for removal of the corporate rescue practitioner not having been pleaded and proved if his appointment was regular.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">That the applicant had established a <i>prima facie</i> case for the grant of the provisional order and that if the impugned circular resolution was not suspended until the return date, the applicant would suffer irreparable harm to the extent that the corporate rescue proceedings would continue premised upon an invalid resolution rendering the proceedings a nullity.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">On the above findings, the learned judge granted the provisional order.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            I have considered the grounds of appeal of the second and third respondents. I deal with them in turn. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            Ground 1 – the second and third respondents averred that the applicant did not have locus standi to sue for the relief sought as he was not a shareholder and that the court therefore erred at law to grant the applicant relief based upon the applicant being a director. There are no prospects of success of this ground of appeal. The learned judge properly exercised his discretion to grant the provisional order after the applicant established a <i>prima facie</i> case. The second and third respondents are the ones who prepared a circular resolution without the applicant’s participation. A reading of section 196(1) of the Companies and Other Business Entities Act is clear in its provisions that short of holding a formal meeting of the board of a company, the directors may adopt a resolution by written consent of all directors who are entitled to vote on the matter. It was common cause that the resolution in issue was not signed by the applicant yet he was entitled to vote on the matter. The applicant as an affected director was entitled to challenge the resolution in such capacity. The applicant clearly had <i>locus standi</i> to challenge the validity of the resolution as he did. The proposed ground of appeal is meritless.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            Ground 2 – that the court erred at law to interdict lawful conduct taken pursuant to statutory authority. There is no merit in this ground of appeal. The lawfulness of the conduct of the second and third respondents and whether the conduct was properly taken in terms of statute is the gravamen of the application. The second and third respondents sent the impugned circular resolution to the applicant for signature to evidence his written consent. The applicant refused to sign the resolution. Therefore there was no consensus of all directors and thus it was not validated by signatures of all directors as provided for in section 196(1) aforesaid. The applicant therefore established a <i>prima facie</i> case for the suspension of the circular resolution. The applicant adduced evidence not really disputed to establish that he was a director of the company who however did not participate in the resolution to place the company under corporate rescue and refused to sign the resolution on a matter on which he was entitled to vote. <i>Prima facie</i>, the evidence would render the circular resolution non-compliant with section 196(1) aforesaid. The ground of appeal has no prospects of success.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            Ground 3 – that the court erred at law to grant an interdict on a non-existent cause of action because the Insolvency Act provides for specific instances when a court may intervene is vague and embarrassing. It is itself non-specific for being widely generalized. The judgment clearly identified the cause of action being the invalidity of a circular resolution issued in terms of the Companies and Other Business Entities Act. The circular aforesaid gave use to the invocation of the Insolvency Act. So, if the circular resolution is invalid then the invocation of the Insolvency Act was invalid. The ground of appeal pre-supposes that the invocation of the Insolvency Act was a valid act and this is where the second and third respondents have missed the real issue which the court decided. There is no merit in this ground of appeal.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            Grounds 4, 5 and 6 – that the court erred at law to grant relief to the applicant whose applicant was beset with material falsehoods relating to the company shareholding relates to an issue which the learned judge considered in his judgment. The two grounds speak to the same thing. The issue of falsity or authenticity of documents of shareholding was an issue left for determination on the return date. In any event on the return date, the applicant’s prayer was <i>inter alia</i> for a declaration that he was the 100% shareholder of the company concerned. The learned judge noted that the applicant’s prayer in the interim was for a suspension of the circular resolution. Even the second and third respondents did not contend that section 196(1) was complied with. They presented alternative arguments relating to the competency of the company being able to ratify the resolution. The argument was dismissed by the learned judge. The learned judge had a discretion to issue the provisional order and properly did so. These grounds of appeal have no prospects of success.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            Ground 7 that the court erred to find that there was a <i>prima facie</i> violation of section 196 aforesaid when; “<i>it had been shown that there was compliance with this provision of the law by the appellants</i>”. This ground of appeal is just so generalized as to be meaningless. Besides its generalized nature the evidence <i>prima facie</i> showed that there was no compliance with section 196 aforesaid because there was no director’s consensus on the resolution. The applicant refused to sign the resolution. It was therefore a resolution of the second and third respondents and not of all directors entitled to vote on the matter. There is therefore no merit in this ground of appeal.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            In relation to the appeal by the first respondent herein, it is difficult to appreciate the import of the appeal and I do not propose to deal with the individual grounds of appeal in any greater detail than to comment that they are premised upon a failure to appreciate the import of the application. The issue which the learned judge considered was the impugned circular resolution which catapulted the corporate rescue proceedings and the appointment of the first respondent as corporate rescue practitioner. The first respondent had no role to play there and at best he would have been advised to abide by the decision of the court on whether or not the circular resolution was properly and validly procured in terms of section 196 of the Act.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            The grounds of appeal are based on the premise that since the corporate rescue status of the company had not been set aside, the applicant could only seek relief set out under sections 123 and 132 of the Insolvency Act. This is where the first respondent much as the second and third respondents are misdirected. The application was not founded upon the Insolvency Act. It was founded on section 196 of the Companies and Other Business Entities Act. Once it was determined that there was a prima facie violation of section 196 aforesaid, it meant that everything done pursuant to the violation would fall aside. It must be appreciated that the learned judge suspended the operation of the violation. One fails to appreciate what the problem caused by the suspension is for the 1<sup>st</sup> respondent. The first respondent is least qualified to be of assistance on whether or not the circular resolution was validly passed. He was not involved and has no personal knowledge of the processes which were at play.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            The first respondent’s notice of appeal raises issues of the applicant having approached the court with dirty hands. This was a preliminary point raised at the initial hearing of the application. It was determined against the first respondent in judgment HH 650/21. No appeal was filed in relation to the dismissal of that and other points <i>in limine</i>. The first applicant cannot sneak in this ground of appeal because his notice of appeal clearly shows <i>ex facie</i> that it is against judgment HH 668/21.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            In relation to whether the court erred in granting relief other than that consequent on sections 123 and 132 of the Insolvency Act, I have already dealt with the issue when considering the grounds of appeal filed by the second and third respondents. The first respondents fails to appreciate that the application was founded upon an alleged violation of section 196 of the Companies and Other Business Entities Act. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            The first respondent also averred that the court erred to grant a null and void interdict because it should have set aside the certificate of appointment of the first respondent first. The ground of appeal has no substance. The resolution in issue brought about the current corporate rescue status of the company. Corporate recue status is a step by step process starting with the resolution. If that first step is nullified or suspended, it is the foundation and without it anything built upon it falls away. There is no merit in the ground of appeal because the certificate is by law suspended if the foundation is suspended. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            The first respondent in ground 4 averred that the court erred to find that “<i>1<sup>st</sup> respondent</i> (sic)” had established a <i>prima facie</i> case. Apart from the wrong citation of the party, the ground of appeal is so generalized as to be meaningless. It must be left at that. It has no prospect of success. It is not a ground of appeal which can be answered. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            The ground of appeal number 5 is without substance because the court did not premise its order upon any assumption as alleged. The learned judge did not assume anything. The learned judge interrogated the facts surrounding the making of the circular resolution and applied the provisions of section 196 of Companies and Other Business Entities Act. The learned judge determined that <i>prima facie</i>, the circular resolution did not comply with section 196 aforesaid. Even the second and third respondents sought to argue that the resolution could be ratified and did not persist that it was section 196 compliant. The learned judge did not make a final order as alleged in the ground of appeal. This ground of appeal has no prospects of success. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            Having determined that the grounds of both appeals have no prospects of success, this is not the end of the matter. I must consider the issue of the balance of convenience and prejudice to the parties. The issue at play concerns an alleged violation of a statutory provision, section 196(1) of the Companies and Other Business Entities Act. The learned judge on page 10 of the cyclostyled judgment noted that corporate rescue process was premised upon the assumption that the resolution founding the process was validly passed. The learned judge stated:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">“.... if on the return date the court decides that the circular resolution was taunted by irregularities, then it follows that the entire process founded on that defective resolution collapses ...... if the operation of the resolution placing the company under corporate rescue proceedings is not suspended, then he (applicant) may suffer irreparable harm to the extent</span></span></i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"> <i>that the corporate rescue proceedings may continue on the basis of a defective resolution ......”</i></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">I must keep in mind that an act done contrary to the law is invalid and of no force or effect. <i>Mr Nyamakura</i> for the applicant in his heads of argument cited the case of <i>Schierhout</i> v <i>Minister</i> <i>of Justice</i> 1926 AD 99 at 109 where the following is stated:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">“<i>It is a fundamental principle of our law that a thing done contrary to the direct prohibition of the law is void and of no effect. The rule is thus stated ..... so that what is done contrary to the prohibition of the law is not only of no force of no effect, but must be regarded as never having been done – and that whether the law given has expressly so decreed , or not, the mere prohibition operates to nullifying the act</i>”. </span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Thus in case, with the resolution having been found to be prima facie invalid, it would be improper for the court to exercise a discretion which has the effect of giving effect to the impugned resolution. The company was operational prior to the passing of the circular resolution and it can still continue to operate. The provisional order can also be anticipated by any affected respondents and it remains temporary. The issue of balance of convenience must be paramount and it is achieved by granting the order of execution pending appeal to avoid the perpetration of a <i>prima</i> <i>facie</i> established illegality.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The determination I make is therefore that:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <ol><li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Pending the determination of appeals SC 462/21 and SC 463/21, the judgment appealed against in case number HC 5436/21 (ref HH 668/21) shall be carried into execution pending the determination of the said appeals.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The costs of this application shall be in the cause in case number HC 5436/21 upon its determination on the return date.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Makuku Law Firm</span></span></i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">, applicant’s legal practitioners</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Mabulala and Dembure</span></span></i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">, 1<sup>st</sup> respondent legal practitioners</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Rubaya and Chatambudza</span></span></i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">, 2<sup>nd</sup> and 3<sup>rd</sup> respondents’ legal practitioners </span></span></span></span></span></p> </div> <div class="views-element-container"><div class="view view-eva view-download-conditional view-id-download_conditional view-display-id-entity_view_1 js-view-dom-id-fdc7287e5e26c7577be839f3a11f57bc2b4d61e599bff3c5581317df98c32fa2"> <div><div class="views-field views-field-views-conditional-field"><span class="field-content"><p class="text-align-right">HH 13-22</p> <p class="text-align-right">HC 6970-21</p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">OFER SIVAN</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">versus</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">ALEXIOUS DERA N.O.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">and</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">GILAD SHABTAI</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">and</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">MUNYARADZI GONYORA</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">and</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">MASTER OF THE HIGH COURT</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">WAMAMBO J</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">HARARE, 10 December, 2021 and 12 January, 2022</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Urgent Chamber Application</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Advocate T.N. Nyamakura</span></span></i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"> for the applicant</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">R. Dembure </span></span></i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">for the 1<sup>st</sup> respondent</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Advocate L.K. Mapuranga</span></span></i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"> for the 2<sup>nd</sup> and 3<sup>rd</sup> respondents</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">No appearance for the 4<sup>th</sup> respondent </span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">WAMAMBO J:          The applicant was on 29 November, 2021 granted a provisional order by M</span></span></span><span lang="EN-ZW" style="line-height:150%" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">USITHU</span></span><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"> J in case number HC 5436/21 (judgment ref HH 668/21) in an urgent application which the applicant had filed against the respondents herein, seeking relief as set out in the provisional order filed therewith. The provisional order which the applicant sought was couched as follows:-</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">“<b><i>INTERIM RELIEF GRANTED</i></b></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Pending determination of this matter, the applicant is granted the following relief.</span></span></span></i></span></span></span></p> <ol><li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The operation of a resolution executed by the first and second respondent dated 1<sup>st</sup> October, 2021 authorising the placing of Adlecraft Investments (Private) Limited under voluntary business rescue proceedings is suspended.</span></span></i></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The respondents are interdicted and restrained from implementing the terms of that resolution.</span></span></i></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:72px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"> </p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">TERMS OF THE FINAL ORDER SOUGHT </span></span></span></i></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">That you now show cause to this Honourable Court why a final order should not be made on the following terms:-</span></span></i></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT</span></span></span></i></span></span></span></p> <ol><li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The resolution dated 1<sup>st</sup> October, 2021 attached to this application marked “E” endorsed under CRP 3/21 is null and void.</span></span></i></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:72px; text-align:justify"> </p> <ol start="2"><li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Adlecraft Investments (Private) Limited has only issued 20 shares, all of which are currently owned by the applicant as 100 % shareholder.</span></span></i></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:48px"> </p> <ol start="3"><li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Consequent to the above declaration the following consequential relief will be sought.</span></span></i></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:48px"> </p> <ol><li style="list-style-type:none"> <ol><li style="margin-left:16px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">An order setting aside the resolution dated 1<sup>st</sup> October, 2021 under CRP 3/21.</span></span></i></span></span></span></li> </ol></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify"> </p> <ol><li style="list-style-type:none"> <ol start="2"><li style="margin-left:16px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">An order setting aside the appointment of fourth respondent as corporate rescue practitioner.</span></span></i></span></span></span></li> </ol></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:48px"> </p> <ol><li style="list-style-type:none"> <ol start="3"><li style="margin-left:16px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">An order interdicting and restraining the first respondent from representing himself out to the public or transacting on the perjured capacity of a holder of equity in Adlecraft Investments (Private) Limited.</span></span></i></span></span></span></li> </ol></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:48px"> </p> <ol><li style="list-style-type:none"> <ol start="4"><li style="margin-left:16px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The first and second respondents are ordered to pay the applicant’s costs on an attorney and own client scale.”</span></span></i></span></span></span></li> </ol></li> </ol><p style="margin-bottom:11px; margin-left:48px"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The provisional order granted by M</span></span></span><span lang="EN-ZW" style="line-height:150%" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">USITHU</span></span><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"> J appears on the last page of his judgment HH 668/21. The operative part of the order reads as follows:- <i>  </i></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">“<i>Resultantly it is ordered that:</i></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Pending the determination of this matter on the return date the applicant is granted the following interim relief:-</span></span></i></span></span></span></p> <ol><li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The operation of the circular resolution executed by the first and second respondents dated 1 October, 2021 authorising the placing of Adlecraft Investment (Private) Limited under voluntary business rescue proceedings is suspended.</span></span></i></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:72px; text-align:justify"> </p> <ol start="2"><li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The respondents are hereby interdicted from implementing the terms of the resolution.”</span></span></i></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-bottom:11px; margin-left:48px"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The first, second and fourth respondent were dissatisfied with the whole judgment of M</span></span></span><span lang="EN-ZW" style="line-height:150%" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">USITHU </span></span><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">J. They noted appeals in the nature of a combined notice of appeal in respect of the second and third respondents herein and the other notice of appeal in respect of the first respondent. The appeals are pending in the Supreme Court respectively as case numbers SC 462/21 and SC 463/21. They were filed on 30 November, 2021. The applicant consequent on the filing of the two appeals filed this application on 6 December, 2021.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The applicant prays for leave to execute M</span></span></span><span lang="EN-ZW" style="line-height:150%" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">USITHU</span></span><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"> J’s judgment number HC 668/21 pending the determination of the appeals. The details of the order sought by the appellant is set out in his draft order on pages 73 – 74 of the application as follows:- </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">“<i>1.       The application by the applicant for leave to execute the judgment of this Honourable Court granted on 29 November, 2021 as judgment number HH 668/21 pending the appeal against the judgment noted by the respondents</i> <i>under SC 462/21 and SC 463/21 be and is hereby granted.</i></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt"> </p> <p style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">2.        Consequently it is directed that the applicant be and is hereby granted leave to carry the judgment of this court in HH 668/21 into execution notwithstanding the appeals against it by the respondents.</span></span></i></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt"> </p> <ol start="3"><li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">     This order will lapse upon final conclusion of whichever appeal is determined first   </span></span></i></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:72px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">     between SC 462/21 and SC 463/21 </span></span></i></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:72px; text-align:justify"> </p> <ol start="4"><li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">    The costs of this application shall be paid by the respondent who apposes the </span></span></i></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:72px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">   application on the basis of costs following the cause. In the event that more than one       </span></span></i></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:72px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">  respondent opposed the application, then costs shall be borne jointly and severally, </span></span></i></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:72px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">  the one paying the other(s) to be absolved.”</span></span></i></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">In respect of the filed notices of appeal the grounds of appeal in case number SC 462/21 are stated as follows:-</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">“The court a quo erred at law by:-</span></span></i></span></span></span></p> <ol><li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Granting relief to the first respondent when such relief was unavailable to him as he lacked standing to sue for such relief since he is not a shareholder in the company over which he claimed relief and his status as a director did not grant standing.</span></span></i></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:72px; text-align:justify"> </p> <ol start="2"><li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Granting an interdict against conduct which was lawful and which was taken pursuant to statutory authority.</span></span></i></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:48px"> </p> <ol start="3"><li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Granting an interdict based on a non-existent cause of action as the Insolvency Act [Chapter 6:07] provided for the specific circumstances in which the court could intervene and the circumstances of this cases was one such.</span></span></i></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:48px"> </p> <ol start="4"><li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Granting relief to the first respondent whose application was beset by apparent and material falsehoods regarding the first respondent’s shareholding in the company over which he sought to assert rights. </span></span></i></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:48px"> </p> <ol start="5"><li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Finding that the interim relief sought could be granted even in the face of material falsehoods in the application because the material falsehoods became relevant on the return date.</span></span></i></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:48px"> </p> <ol start="6"><li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Granting an interdict which interfered with the internal affairs of the company on a matter involving what was a ratifiable wrong.</span></span></i></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:48px"> </p> <ol start="7"><li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Finding that the first respondent had shown a prima facie violation of section 196 of the Companies and Other Business Entities, Act [Chapter 24:31] where it had been shown that there was compliance with this provision of the law by the applicant”.</span></span></i></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-bottom:11px; margin-left:48px"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">In respect of case number SC 463/21 the grounds of appeal were stated as follows:- </span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">“<i>1.    The court a quo erred at law and grossly misdirected itself when it found contrary to</i></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">       the evidence on record that the 1<sup>st</sup> respondent had not approached the court with dirty</span></span></i></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">      hands</span></span></i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">.</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt"> </p> <p style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">2.    The court a quo erred at law and grossly misdirected itself in failing to find as it ought             </span></span></i></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:72px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">to have done that, it could not afford 1<sup>st</sup> respondent the relief he sought since such relief fell outside the scope of the remedies available in terms of section 132 and 123 of the Insolvency Act [Chapter 6:07].</span></span></i></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            3.    The court a quo erred at law and grossly misdirected itself in failing to appreciate that </span></span></i></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:72px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">without setting aside the certificate of appointment issue in favour of the appellant by the Master of High Court, any interdict granted against appellant would be null and void ab initio.</span></span></i></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i>            </i></span></span></span></p> <ol start="4"><li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The court a quo erred at law and grossly misdirected itself  in its adjudicative process when it held that 1<sup>st</sup> respondent had established a prima facie case entitling him to the interdictory relief that he sought.</span></span></i></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:72px; text-align:justify"> </p> <ol start="5"><li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">A fortiori the court a quo erred at law and grossly misdirected itself when it held that the corporate rescue proceedings a quo were premised on the assumption that the resolution founding the process was validly passed, yet such a final and definitive finding could only be made on a balance of probabilities and not a prima facie case”.</span></span></i></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The respondents opposed this application. At the hearing on 10 December, 2021 the parties legal practitioners made brief oral submissions where after it was agreed by the parties that they would file heads of argument. The application would then be determined on the filed papers. It is convenient to first briefly outline the law and the court’s approach to the determination of an application for leave to execute pending appeal. I will then consider the facts of the case and relate them to the law in determining the application.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The law and the courts approach to such an application are settled matters. Counsel for the parties in their heads of argument cited various authorities which include the following:-</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <ul><li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Dabengwa &amp; Anor v Minister of Home Affairs</span></span></span></i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"> 1982 (1) ZLR 223;</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Jeremy Prince (Pvt) Ltd</span></span></span></i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"> v <i>Owen and Anor</i> HH 14/86;</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Van T. Hoff</span></span></span></i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"> v <i>Van T. Hoff &amp; Ors </i>1988 (1) ZLR 335 (H)</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Net One Cellular (Pvt) Ltd</span></span></span></i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"> v <i>Net One Employees &amp; Anor</i> 2005 (1) ZLR 275 (S) at 281 A – D </span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ul><p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">In this regard, the case of <i>ARTUZ</i> v <i>ZANU PF</i> HMA 37/18 discusses the law and court’s approach in depth.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            In the case of <i>Jonga</i> v <i>Chabata &amp; Anor.</i> HH 276/2017 C</span></span></span><span lang="EN-ZW" style="line-height:150%" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">HATUKUTA </span></span><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">J (<i>as she then was</i>) aptly noted the law and court’s approach as set out in the authorities as follows at page 3 of the cyclostyled judgment; </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">‘<i>Turning to the merits of this application, the parties are agreed that it is trite that the noting of an appeal has the effect of suspending the operation of the judgment appealed against. Such judgment can only be executed with the leave of the court that granted it. The main guiding principle for the court in determining such an application is to grant leave where real and substantial justice requires such leave or conversely, where injustice would otherwise be done if leave is not granted. The court would also have regard to the prospects of success on appeal; the potentiality of irreparable harm or prejudice to the applicant of leave is not granted, the potentiality of irreparable harm to the first respondent if stay (sic) (it should be ‘leave’) and where there is the possibility of irreparable harm to both parties, the balance of hardship or inconvenience ......................... see also Zimbabwe Mining Development Corporation v African Resources PLC &amp; Ors. 2010 (2) ZLR 34 (S); Kawa v Musenda &amp; Ors. HB 108/14; Founders Building Society v Mazuka 2000 (1) ZLR 528 and Econet (Pvt) Ltd v Telecel Zimbabwe (Pvt) Ltd 1998 (1) ZLR 149 (HC) 154 H”.</i></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">From the judgment appealed against HH 668/21 read together with the judgment on points in limine number HH 650/21, the scenario which emerges is to all interests and purposes a battle for control of the company Adlecraft Investments (Pvt) Ltd. The battle is between the applicant and his co-directors, namely the second and third respondents. The first respondent fight is a different one. He was appointed by the fourth respondent to act as the corporate rescue practitioner for Adlecraft Investments (Pvt) Ltd. following the passing of a circular resolution for placement of the company under voluntary corporate rescue allegedly passed by the second and third respondents in their capacity as directors of Adlecraft Investments (Pvt) Ltd. The validity of the circular resolution was challenged by the applicant. The first respondents fight was to persuade the court to hold that his appointment as the corporate rescue practitioner was regular and should not be set aside. Ultimately, the principal issue which M</span></span></span><span lang="EN-ZW" style="line-height:150%" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">USITHU</span></span><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"> J had to decide was whether or not the applicant had on his papers established a <i>prima facie</i> case for the relief sought.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">In regard to the determination of M</span></span></span><span lang="EN-ZW" style="line-height:150%" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">USITHU </span></span><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">J, the learned judge acted in terms of the provisions of rule 60(9) which provides as follows:-</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">“(9)     where in an application for provisional order the judge is satisfied that the papers establish a prima facie case he or she shall grant a provisional order either in terms of the draft filed or as varied”.</span></span></i></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The question whether or not M</span></span></span><span lang="EN-ZW" style="line-height:150%" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">USITHU </span></span><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">J. made an error on law, fact or both in holding that the applicant’s papers established a <i>prima facie</i> case and consequently granting the provisional order is ultimately what the Supreme Court would have to determine. In terms of the quoted sub rule aforesaid, the judge is obliged to grant the provisional order as sought or as varied once the judge is satisfied that the applicant’s paper establish a <i>prima facie</i> case. Therefore in considering the proposed grounds of appeal, I must consider whether there are any prospects that the Supreme Court will find that M</span></span></span><span lang="EN-ZW" style="line-height:150%" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">USITHU </span></span><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">J. was misdirected to find that a <i>prima facie</i> case was established on the applicant’s papers. If the learned judge was not misdirected, then the proposed appeals have no prospects of success. This fact would then have to be considered together with other factors as already set out herein.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The facts of the matter as set out by M</span></span></span><span lang="EN-ZW" style="line-height:150%" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">USITHU </span></span><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">J. in both judgments HH 650/21 and HH 668/21 would appear not to be in dispute amongst the parties herein. The learned judge summarized the facts as that the applicant claimed to be the director of Adlecraft Investments (Private) Ltd as well as its sole shareholder. On the other hand the second respondent herein claimed to be the majority shareholder of the company through a company called Adlecraft Holdings (Pvt) Ltd which held all the shares in Adlecraft Investments (Pvt) Ltd. The second respondent claimed to be the sole director of the share holding company and by extension the majority shareholder in Adlecraft Investments (Pvt) Ltd.  </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The learned judge found that the second and third respondents claimed that the correct shareholding of Adlecraft Investments (Pvt) Ltd as at 29 August, 2018 excluded the applicant. They averred that the shareholding was as follows:-</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <ol style="list-style-type:lower-alpha"><li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Adlecraft Holdings (Pvt) Ltd – 49%</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Munyaradzi Gonyora (third respondent herein) – 10%</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Razaro Mapuwapuwa – 10% </span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Stephen Itai Mangoda – 10%</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Chance Chitima – 10% </span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Adlecraft Workers Trust – 11% </span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The second and third respondents claimed that the above shareholding structure was the one furnished to the Zimbabwe Investment Authority and thus was the correct shareholding of the company. The second and third respondents therefore disputed on that piece of evidence the applicant’s claim that he was the sole shareholder of Adlecraft. The learned judge also noted that the extant CR 14 listed four directors, namely the applicant, second and third respondents herein and one Claudius Nhemwa. The learned judge also noted that no CR 2 form was produced to confirm the shareholding of the applicant.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Significantly, M</span></span></span><span lang="EN-ZW" style="line-height:150%" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">USITHU </span></span><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">J. stated as follows on page 5 of judgement HH 668/21</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">‘<i>First and second respondents further claimed that a shareholders dispute existed between the parties. It had the potential to cause serious financial harm and for that reason there was need to entrust an independent third party with the affairs of the company to avoid further financial review. The applicant was allegedly running down the company. As the managing director, he had failed to repay the loans advances to the company</i>.</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">First and second respondents averred that the application was ill conceived as the corporate rescue process was under way. The court could not interdict a lawful process that was intended to save the company. More importantly the third respondent and the registrar of companies had accepted the resolution. The resolution was passed by the majority directors. The resolution was therefore not afflicted by any illegality as alleged. The court was urged to dismiss the application with costs on the legal practitioner.</span></span></i></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Fourth respondent’s case:</span></span></i></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Following the dismissal of its preliminary points, Mr Sithole for the fourth respondent advised that he would be abiding by the papers already filed of record. The fourth respondent insisted that his appointment as corporate rescue practitioner was confirmed by the third respondent through a certificate of appointment of 6 October, 2021. The grounds of his removal from his position were confined to those prescribed under section 132 of the Insolvency Act. At the time the applicant deposed to the founding affidavit, he was no longer a director of the company by virtue of section 130(2) of the Insolvency Act.</span></span></i></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The existence of a shareholder dispute necessitated the placing of the company under corporate rescue whilst the parties resolved their differences. The applicant had refused to co-operate with the corporate rescue practitioner. The fourth respondent prayed that the application be dismissed with costs on a higher scale”. </span></span></i></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">After setting out positions of the parties the learned judge on page 6 – 10 of judgment HH 668/21 considered the submissions of the parties. He noted that the second and third respondents herein had applied to produce a supplementary affidavit, to which they attached a shareholders agreements and share certificates allegedly signed by the applicant. The documents were retrieved from the Zimbabwe Investment Authority. The documents were retrieved by the first respondent herein from the Zimbabwe Investment Centre. The purpose of producing the documents was intended to show that the applicant lied about the shareholding status of the company in his founding affidavit when he deposed that he was the 100% shareholder of Adlecraft Investments (Pvt) Ltd.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The learned judge noted that the applicant’s response to the documents from the Zimbabwe Investment Authority was that the issue before the court concerned the applicant’s status as a director and not shareholder of Adlecraft Investments (Pvt) Ltd because it was a director’s disputed resolution which placed the company into voluntary business rescue. The court had to decide whether the disputed directors’ resolution was valid or not. The applicant averred that section 196(1) of the Companies and Other Business Entities Act [<i>Chapter 24 – 31</i>] was not complied with. The applicant averred that he was entitled to notice of the meeting of directors and to participate in the deliberations which resulted in the resolution to place the company under voluntary co-operate rescue. It was the applicant’s case that on the fact of it, section 196(1) of the Companies and Other Business Entities Act required that all directors of the company should participate in the making of the resolution as was reached in this case. The applicant averred that the court could well hold the resolution to be invalid and set it aside on the return date. The applicant averred that he was not given notice of the meeting and did not participate in the meeting. The applicant also submitted that there was no evidence of financial distress of the company pleaded by the second and third respondents as would have necessitated the placement of the company under corporate rescue in terms of the Insolvency Act [<i>Chapter 6:07</i>]. Applicant averred that no accounts were placed before the court to back up the claim that the company was in financial distress.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The applicant averred that the second respondent was not a shareholder of Adlecraft Investments (Pvt) Ltd. The second respondent was alleged to have lent money to the company. He was thereafter appointed as a non-executive director to safeguard his financial interest in the company. The applicant averred that the loan had been partly paid and that the second respondent had never participated in the management of the company’s affairs.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The next development as set out by the applicant and recorded by the learned judge was the making of a circular resolution of directors dated 1 October, 2021. The content of the resolution was recorded in the judgment as was the applicant’s response to it. In brief the resolution focussed that the company would “<i>likely experience financial distress within the next six (6) months arising from the shareholder disputes which have spilled into the courts of law and are crippling the company’s operations ....</i>”. The resolution then noted that the company had reasonable prospects of being rehabilitated successfully if placed under corporate rescue since the company had assets and business which if utilised properly would restore the company to a going concern status. The resolution appointed the first respondent herein as corporate rescue practitioner and the third respondent as the one to depose to a sworn statement on the company’s behalf on the status of the company as required by the operative provision of the Insolvency Act.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The applicant averred that he received the circular resolution by e-mail on 2 October, 2021. He was not given prior notice of the meeting which resulted in the resolution. He was not consulted by the second and third respondents on the issues arising from the resolution and did not therefore provide any input in the making of the resolution. He protested in his response to the resolution that the second and third respondents were acting in bad faith because they had purported to negotiate the settlement of a related case HC 4465/21 whilst at the same time engaging in the issue of corporate rescue without the knowledge of the applicant. The applicant indicated that the resolution had no legal basis. Further the applicant indicated that the company had no challenges which called for its placement under corporate rescue.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The applicant as noted by the learned judge on page 4 of judgment number HH 668/21 contended that the circular was irregular as no meeting was held. He noted that the resolution was not signed by all directors as required by law in circumstances where a formal meeting is dispensed with. The applicant contended that the company’s articles of association did not provide for circular resolutions.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The learned judge also noted the submission by the applicants counsel that section 196(i) of the Companies and Other Business Entities Act, required that each director should participate in the meeting called to deliberate on placement of the company under corporate rescue.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The learned judge noted the submission made by the second and third respondents that the applicant had stated material falsehoods. These related to the applicant deposing to facts which were inconsistent with documents retrieved from the Zimbabwe Investment Authority. The learned judge took note of the submission further made that because the applicant had told material lies in his affidavit he ought to be denied the relief which he sought. The learned judge further noted the submission made that the applicant had declined to sign the resolution and the court should not intervene unless the wrong committed was not ratifiable. Counsel’s contention that the applicant could still be outvoted on ratification of the omissions was noted by the learned judge. The learned judge also noted the second and third respondents’ submission that the non-compliance with the law was immaterial because the resolution would still have been passed by a properly constituted directors meeting. The learned judge also took note of the submission that the applicant ought to have brought his challenge as a derivative action because as a director he was disqualified from acting as director because of the corporate rescue status of the company. The learned judge noted that in relation to the absence of evidence on the company’s financial distress, the second and third respondents counsel had submitted that the true financial position of the company would be known after the first respondent herein had submitted his report on the company’s financial position.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The learned judge noted the response by the applicant’s counsel to allegations that the applicant deposed to material falsehoods. The response was that the issue was properly to be determined on the return date. The applicant also averred that the issue of falsity of depositions also arose in paragraph 9.5 of the first and second respondents’ affidavit wherein they stated that the company had four directors currently and that if that was so, then two directors could not have validly passed the resolution as was purportedly done.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">In his analysis the learned judge noted that the applicant was seeking a provisional order to suspend the operation of the circular resolution executed by the second and third respondents pending the determination of the matter on the return date. The applicant was also seeking on the return date, an order that he be declared the 100% shareholder in Adlecraft Investments (Pvt) Ltd.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The learned judge was directed to determine the application in terms of rule 60(9) of the High Court Rules. The learned judge quoted the rule <i>ex tenso</i> as I have already noted it herein. The learned judge noted in his judgment that the purpose of the provisional order or interlocutory injuction was as explained in the case of <i>Attorney General</i> v <i>Punch Limited and Anor</i> [2002] UKHL 50 where it stated:-</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">“<i>The purpose for which the court grants an interlocutory injuction can be stated quite simply. In American Cynamid Co v Ethicon (Pvt) Ltd [1975 AC 396, 405 D LORD DIPLOCK described it as remedy which is both temporary and discretionary. Its purpose is to regulate, and where possible, to preserve the rights of the parties pending the final determination of the matter which is in issue</i>”.  </span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The learned judge also stated the requirements that an applicant who seeks interim relief in the nature of a provisional order must establish. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The learned judge made a finding that the crux of the application was whether or not the circular resolution which purportedly placed the company into voluntary liquidation was valid. The matter turned upon the interpretation of the provisions of section 196(1) of the Companies and Other Business Entities Act which reads as follows:- </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">“<i>196    Directors acting other than in person at meeting  -</i></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"> </p> <ol><li style="margin-left:80px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">A decision that could be voted on at a meeting of the board of company may instead be adopted by written consent stating the action so taken, signed by all of the directors entitled to vote on the matter. A decision made in such matters is of the same effect as if it had been approved by voting at a meeting.</span></span></i></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:120px; text-align:justify"> </p> <ol start="2"><li style="margin-left:80px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">....................................”</span></span></span></i></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The learned judge made the following factual and legal findings as may be seen upon a reading of the cyclostyled judgment;</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <ol style="list-style-type:lower-alpha"><li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The applicant had established that he was a director of the company in issue and that the fact was not in dispute.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The applicant had petitioned the court as a director of the company and not as a shareholder and that the argument by the second and third respondents that the applicant should have instituted a derivative action fell away since the applicant was challenging the validity of a director’s resolution.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The applicant by reason of being a director had an interest in the company and that the second and third respondents had sent him the disputed circular resolution to sign because they accepted his interest in the company.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">That if the resolution was not passed in terms of the provisions of section 196(1) of the Companies and Other Business Entities Act [<i>Chapter 24;31</i>], then it was irregular and invalid, hence, it could not be ratified since an invalid act cannot be validated by ratification.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">That the argument that the applicant had lied in his affidavit on the shareholding structure of the company was an issue which went to the root of the final relief sought in regard to the claim for a declaration of 100% shareholding made by the applicant. The learned judge could not make such a finding at this stage since the parties presented different versions on the shareholding. The issue would be determined on the return date.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">That first respondent’s contention that the removal of the corporate rescue practitioner could only be made in terms of section 132 of the Insolvency Act missed the point which was that the challenge of the applicant was that the resolution placing the company under corporate rescue was invalid. If invalid, then it would follow that any act made based upon it would be invalid. The fourth respondent could only rely on the grounds for removal of the corporate rescue practitioner not having been pleaded and proved if his appointment was regular.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">That the applicant had established a <i>prima facie</i> case for the grant of the provisional order and that if the impugned circular resolution was not suspended until the return date, the applicant would suffer irreparable harm to the extent that the corporate rescue proceedings would continue premised upon an invalid resolution rendering the proceedings a nullity.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">On the above findings, the learned judge granted the provisional order.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            I have considered the grounds of appeal of the second and third respondents. I deal with them in turn. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            Ground 1 – the second and third respondents averred that the applicant did not have locus standi to sue for the relief sought as he was not a shareholder and that the court therefore erred at law to grant the applicant relief based upon the applicant being a director. There are no prospects of success of this ground of appeal. The learned judge properly exercised his discretion to grant the provisional order after the applicant established a <i>prima facie</i> case. The second and third respondents are the ones who prepared a circular resolution without the applicant’s participation. A reading of section 196(1) of the Companies and Other Business Entities Act is clear in its provisions that short of holding a formal meeting of the board of a company, the directors may adopt a resolution by written consent of all directors who are entitled to vote on the matter. It was common cause that the resolution in issue was not signed by the applicant yet he was entitled to vote on the matter. The applicant as an affected director was entitled to challenge the resolution in such capacity. The applicant clearly had <i>locus standi</i> to challenge the validity of the resolution as he did. The proposed ground of appeal is meritless.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            Ground 2 – that the court erred at law to interdict lawful conduct taken pursuant to statutory authority. There is no merit in this ground of appeal. The lawfulness of the conduct of the second and third respondents and whether the conduct was properly taken in terms of statute is the gravamen of the application. The second and third respondents sent the impugned circular resolution to the applicant for signature to evidence his written consent. The applicant refused to sign the resolution. Therefore there was no consensus of all directors and thus it was not validated by signatures of all directors as provided for in section 196(1) aforesaid. The applicant therefore established a <i>prima facie</i> case for the suspension of the circular resolution. The applicant adduced evidence not really disputed to establish that he was a director of the company who however did not participate in the resolution to place the company under corporate rescue and refused to sign the resolution on a matter on which he was entitled to vote. <i>Prima facie</i>, the evidence would render the circular resolution non-compliant with section 196(1) aforesaid. The ground of appeal has no prospects of success.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            Ground 3 – that the court erred at law to grant an interdict on a non-existent cause of action because the Insolvency Act provides for specific instances when a court may intervene is vague and embarrassing. It is itself non-specific for being widely generalized. The judgment clearly identified the cause of action being the invalidity of a circular resolution issued in terms of the Companies and Other Business Entities Act. The circular aforesaid gave use to the invocation of the Insolvency Act. So, if the circular resolution is invalid then the invocation of the Insolvency Act was invalid. The ground of appeal pre-supposes that the invocation of the Insolvency Act was a valid act and this is where the second and third respondents have missed the real issue which the court decided. There is no merit in this ground of appeal.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            Grounds 4, 5 and 6 – that the court erred at law to grant relief to the applicant whose applicant was beset with material falsehoods relating to the company shareholding relates to an issue which the learned judge considered in his judgment. The two grounds speak to the same thing. The issue of falsity or authenticity of documents of shareholding was an issue left for determination on the return date. In any event on the return date, the applicant’s prayer was <i>inter alia</i> for a declaration that he was the 100% shareholder of the company concerned. The learned judge noted that the applicant’s prayer in the interim was for a suspension of the circular resolution. Even the second and third respondents did not contend that section 196(1) was complied with. They presented alternative arguments relating to the competency of the company being able to ratify the resolution. The argument was dismissed by the learned judge. The learned judge had a discretion to issue the provisional order and properly did so. These grounds of appeal have no prospects of success.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            Ground 7 that the court erred to find that there was a <i>prima facie</i> violation of section 196 aforesaid when; “<i>it had been shown that there was compliance with this provision of the law by the appellants</i>”. This ground of appeal is just so generalized as to be meaningless. Besides its generalized nature the evidence <i>prima facie</i> showed that there was no compliance with section 196 aforesaid because there was no director’s consensus on the resolution. The applicant refused to sign the resolution. It was therefore a resolution of the second and third respondents and not of all directors entitled to vote on the matter. There is therefore no merit in this ground of appeal.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            In relation to the appeal by the first respondent herein, it is difficult to appreciate the import of the appeal and I do not propose to deal with the individual grounds of appeal in any greater detail than to comment that they are premised upon a failure to appreciate the import of the application. The issue which the learned judge considered was the impugned circular resolution which catapulted the corporate rescue proceedings and the appointment of the first respondent as corporate rescue practitioner. The first respondent had no role to play there and at best he would have been advised to abide by the decision of the court on whether or not the circular resolution was properly and validly procured in terms of section 196 of the Act.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            The grounds of appeal are based on the premise that since the corporate rescue status of the company had not been set aside, the applicant could only seek relief set out under sections 123 and 132 of the Insolvency Act. This is where the first respondent much as the second and third respondents are misdirected. The application was not founded upon the Insolvency Act. It was founded on section 196 of the Companies and Other Business Entities Act. Once it was determined that there was a prima facie violation of section 196 aforesaid, it meant that everything done pursuant to the violation would fall aside. It must be appreciated that the learned judge suspended the operation of the violation. One fails to appreciate what the problem caused by the suspension is for the 1<sup>st</sup> respondent. The first respondent is least qualified to be of assistance on whether or not the circular resolution was validly passed. He was not involved and has no personal knowledge of the processes which were at play.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            The first respondent’s notice of appeal raises issues of the applicant having approached the court with dirty hands. This was a preliminary point raised at the initial hearing of the application. It was determined against the first respondent in judgment HH 650/21. No appeal was filed in relation to the dismissal of that and other points <i>in limine</i>. The first applicant cannot sneak in this ground of appeal because his notice of appeal clearly shows <i>ex facie</i> that it is against judgment HH 668/21.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            In relation to whether the court erred in granting relief other than that consequent on sections 123 and 132 of the Insolvency Act, I have already dealt with the issue when considering the grounds of appeal filed by the second and third respondents. The first respondents fails to appreciate that the application was founded upon an alleged violation of section 196 of the Companies and Other Business Entities Act. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            The first respondent also averred that the court erred to grant a null and void interdict because it should have set aside the certificate of appointment of the first respondent first. The ground of appeal has no substance. The resolution in issue brought about the current corporate rescue status of the company. Corporate recue status is a step by step process starting with the resolution. If that first step is nullified or suspended, it is the foundation and without it anything built upon it falls away. There is no merit in the ground of appeal because the certificate is by law suspended if the foundation is suspended. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            The first respondent in ground 4 averred that the court erred to find that “<i>1<sup>st</sup> respondent</i> (sic)” had established a <i>prima facie</i> case. Apart from the wrong citation of the party, the ground of appeal is so generalized as to be meaningless. It must be left at that. It has no prospect of success. It is not a ground of appeal which can be answered. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            The ground of appeal number 5 is without substance because the court did not premise its order upon any assumption as alleged. The learned judge did not assume anything. The learned judge interrogated the facts surrounding the making of the circular resolution and applied the provisions of section 196 of Companies and Other Business Entities Act. The learned judge determined that <i>prima facie</i>, the circular resolution did not comply with section 196 aforesaid. Even the second and third respondents sought to argue that the resolution could be ratified and did not persist that it was section 196 compliant. The learned judge did not make a final order as alleged in the ground of appeal. This ground of appeal has no prospects of success. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            Having determined that the grounds of both appeals have no prospects of success, this is not the end of the matter. I must consider the issue of the balance of convenience and prejudice to the parties. The issue at play concerns an alleged violation of a statutory provision, section 196(1) of the Companies and Other Business Entities Act. The learned judge on page 10 of the cyclostyled judgment noted that corporate rescue process was premised upon the assumption that the resolution founding the process was validly passed. The learned judge stated:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">“.... if on the return date the court decides that the circular resolution was taunted by irregularities, then it follows that the entire process founded on that defective resolution collapses ...... if the operation of the resolution placing the company under corporate rescue proceedings is not suspended, then he (applicant) may suffer irreparable harm to the extent</span></span></i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"> <i>that the corporate rescue proceedings may continue on the basis of a defective resolution ......”</i></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">I must keep in mind that an act done contrary to the law is invalid and of no force or effect. <i>Mr Nyamakura</i> for the applicant in his heads of argument cited the case of <i>Schierhout</i> v <i>Minister</i> <i>of Justice</i> 1926 AD 99 at 109 where the following is stated:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">“<i>It is a fundamental principle of our law that a thing done contrary to the direct prohibition of the law is void and of no effect. The rule is thus stated ..... so that what is done contrary to the prohibition of the law is not only of no force of no effect, but must be regarded as never having been done – and that whether the law given has expressly so decreed , or not, the mere prohibition operates to nullifying the act</i>”. </span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Thus in case, with the resolution having been found to be prima facie invalid, it would be improper for the court to exercise a discretion which has the effect of giving effect to the impugned resolution. The company was operational prior to the passing of the circular resolution and it can still continue to operate. The provisional order can also be anticipated by any affected respondents and it remains temporary. The issue of balance of convenience must be paramount and it is achieved by granting the order of execution pending appeal to avoid the perpetration of a <i>prima</i> <i>facie</i> established illegality.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The determination I make is therefore that:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <ol><li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Pending the determination of appeals SC 462/21 and SC 463/21, the judgment appealed against in case number HC 5436/21 (ref HH 668/21) shall be carried into execution pending the determination of the said appeals.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The costs of this application shall be in the cause in case number HC 5436/21 upon its determination on the return date.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Makuku Law Firm</span></span></i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">, applicant’s legal practitioners</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Mabulala and Dembure</span></span></i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">, 1<sup>st</sup> respondent legal practitioners</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Rubaya and Chatambudza</span></span></i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">, 2<sup>nd</sup> and 3<sup>rd</sup> respondents’ legal practitioners </span></span></span></span></span></p></span></div></div> </div> </div> Fri, 06 May 2022 06:50:14 +0000 Sandra Muengwa 12431 at http://www.zimlii.org ZIMRA v Arreta Chidodo (252 of 2022) [2022] ZWHHC 252 (20 April 2022); http://www.zimlii.org/zw/judgment/harare-high-court/2022/252 <span class="field field--name-title field--type-string field--label-hidden">ZIMRA v Arreta Chidodo (252 of 2022) [2022] ZWHHC 252 (20 April 2022);</span> <div class="field field--name-field-flynote field--type-entity-reference field--label-above"> <div class="field__label">Flynote</div> <div class='field__items'> <div class="field__item"><a href="/taxonomy/term/2249" hreflang="x-default">application for rescission of judgment</a></div> <div class="field__item"><a href="/taxonomy/term/1657" hreflang="en">Stay of Execution</a></div> <div class="field__item"><a href="/taxonomy/term/2269" hreflang="x-default">Urgent Application</a></div> <div class="field__item"><a href="/taxonomy/term/2271" hreflang="x-default">what constitutes urgency (Urgent application)</a></div> </div> </div> <span class="field field--name-uid field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden"><span>Sandra Muengwa</span></span> <span class="field field--name-created field--type-created field--label-hidden">Wed, 05/04/2022 - 13:59</span> <div class="field field--name-field-files field--type-file field--label-above"> <div class="field__label">Download</div> <div class='field__items'> <div class="field__item"> <span class="file file--mime-application-vnd-openxmlformats-officedocument-wordprocessingml-document file--x-office-document"> <a href="https://media.zimlii.org/files/judgments/zwhhc/2022/252/2022-zwhhc-252.docx" type="application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document; length=30729">2022-zwhhc-252.docx</a></span> </div> <div class="field__item"> <span class="file file--mime-application-pdf file--application-pdf"> <a href="https://media.zimlii.org/files/judgments/zwhhc/2022/252/2022-zwhhc-252.pdf" type="application/pdf; length=444526">2022-zwhhc-252.pdf</a></span> </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-body field--type-text-with-summary field--label-hidden field__item"><p align="right" class="MsoHeader" style="text-align:right"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">HH 252-22</span></span></p> <p align="right" class="MsoHeader" style="text-align:right"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">CASE No. HC 2154/22</span></span></p> <p align="right" class="MsoHeader" style="text-align:right"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">REF CASE No. HC 2123/22</span></span></p> <p align="right" class="MsoHeader" style="text-align:right"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">X-REF CASE No. HC 181/22</span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">ZIMBABWE REVENUE AUTHORITY</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">versus</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">ARRETA CHIDODO</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="tab-stops:422.25pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE                                                                                      </span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">TAGU J</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">HARARE, 7 &amp; 20 APRIL 2022</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Urgent Chamber Application</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">E Mukucha with A Makombero, R Chirikure, T E Marange, S. Mupindike,</span></span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"> for the applicant</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">N P Pabwe with T F Chimbadzo</span></span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">, for the respondent</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"> TAGU J: The Applicant approached this Honourable Court on the 1<sup>st</sup> of April 2022 with an Urgent Chamber Application for stay of execution of the court order HC 181/22 pending the finalization of an application for rescission of default judgment filed by the Applicant under HC 2123/22.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The factual background leading to this Urgent Chamber Application is briefly summarized hereunder.  On the 13<sup>th</sup> of December 2021 the Respondent filed a Court Application to set aside the decision of the Applicant to refuse the Respondent an immigration rebate under HC 7141/21.  On the 5<sup>th</sup> of January 2021 the Applicant filed its opposing papers in HC 7141/21 opposing the relief that was being sought by the Respondent.  On 12 January 2022 the Respondent filed another Court Application for a Declaratory Order under HC 181/22.  While the Applicant was preparing opposing papers in respect of HC 181/22 it received a Notice of withdrawal from the Respondent. The Applicant’s counsel perused the notice of withdrawal and noticed that the same parties in the case that the Applicant had prepared the opposing papers and the founding affidavit were the same and he made the wrong conclusion that it was case HC 181/22 that was being withdrawn when in actual fact it was HC 7141/21. The Applicant’s counsel then continued working on an appeal in respect of another case he was handling on the mistaken belief that HC 181/22 had been withdrawn. On the 24<sup>th</sup> of March 2022 at around 8pm the Applicant’s counsel was in Victoria Falls when he received an email from his office with an attachment of a letter from the Respondent’s Legal Practitioners.  It then dawned to him that a default judgment was entered against the Applicant in respect of HC 181/22. The Applicant did not waste time but filed an application for rescission of the default judgment under HC 2123/22 which was filed on the 29<sup>th</sup> of March 2022. The Applicant then proceeded to file the present urgent chamber application for stay of execution of HC 181/22 in terms of Rule 60 of the High Court Rules, 2021 on the 1<sup>st</sup> of April 2022. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The Applicant is seeking the following provisional order-</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b>           </b><b><u><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">“TERMS OF THE FINAL ORDER SOUGHT</span></u></b></span></span></span></p> <ol><li style="text-align:justify; margin-left:8px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">The Provisional Order is hereby confirmed. </span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"> </p> <ol start="2"><li style="text-align:justify; margin-left:8px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">The execution of the order issued in favour of Respondent under HC 181/22 be and is hereby stayed pending the final determination of HC 2123/22.</span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:48px"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"> </p> <ol start="3"><li style="text-align:justify; margin-left:8px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">The costs of this application shall be costs in the cause under the applications pending before the Honourable court under the said Case No. HC 2123/22.</span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:18.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">THAT PENDING the determination of this matter the Applicant is granted the following relief:-</span></span></span></span></p> <ol><li style="text-align:justify; margin-left:8px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">That the Respondent is hereby prohibited and interdicted from any further enforcement or execution of the order issued by this court on 16 February 2022 under Case No. HC 181/22</span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"> </p> <p style="margin-left:24px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><u><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">SERVICE OF THE PROVISIONAL ORDER</span></u></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:24px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">Service of this provisional order shall be effected by delivery of a copy of the provisional order by an employee of the applicant’s legal practitioners at the offices of the respondent’s specified in the urgent chamber application notice.” </span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:18.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">In opposing the application, the Respondent firstly raised three preliminary points which she verily believed are capable of disposing of this matter without the need of going into the merits of the application which is before this court. The parties addressed the court on the preliminary points and later on the merits. I reserved judgment. The following is the judgment of the court. The court will dispose of the preliminary points first before dealing with the merits if need be.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:18.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The respondent’s first preliminary point is that this application is not urgent. She submitted that the urgency in this application is self-created as the Applicant deliberately or carelessly refrained from filing its opposing papers to her Court application for a Declaratory Order under Case number HC 181/22.  She submitted that the need to act in this case arose on the 12<sup>th</sup> of January 2022 after it received her court application under Case number HC 181/22.  Her further submission was that when the deponent to the founding affidavit in the current urgent chamber application Mr. Ephraim Mukucha the legal practitioner who prepared opposing papers to the initial application under Case Number HC 7141/21, must have been aware of the Notice of Withdrawal of HC 7141/21 on the 13<sup>th</sup> of January 2022, and its misleading that he became aware of the filing of the Notice of Withdrawal of case Number HC 7141/22 on the 18<sup>th</sup> of January 2022, 5 days later because both the Notice of Withdrawal and the Court Application were served on the Applicant on the same day. Her further contention was that the said Ephraim Mukucha could not have proceeded to prepare opposing papers for the second application without addressing his mind to the fate of the earlier application involving the same parties and same subject matter.  She prayed that the matter cannot become urgent because of imminent execution, hence the application should be dismissed for lack of urgency.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:18.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The deponent to the Applicant’s application Mr. Mukucha maintained that he received the Notice of Withdrawal of HC 7141/21 on the 18<sup>th</sup> of January 2022 when he had prepared the Notice of Opposition to HC 181/22 and awaiting a Mr. Stephen Musimike for the submission of the signed Notice of Opposition and was busy working on an appeal from the magistrates court to the High Court. He explained that he made the error of noticing that though the parties were the same and matter dealing with the same subject matter, the Case Numbers were different.  He assumed that it was HC 181/22 whose Opposing papers he had prepared that was being withdrawn.  He denied that the Applicant deliberately refrained from filing its Opposing papers to HC 181/22.  The Applicant is prepared to file the same.  He further averred that the need to act only arose on the 24<sup>th</sup> of March 2022 when he was in Victoria Falls on a work-related trip together with the rest of the members of his Legal Division when he received an email from his office with an attachment of a letter from the Respondent’s legal Practitioners.  He did not waste time but prepared the application for rescission of the default judgment filed on 29<sup>th</sup> of March 2022 and the current urgent chamber application for stay of execution filed on the 1<sup>st</sup> of March 2022 respectively. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:18.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The undisputed facts are that when the Respondent served the Applicant, which is a statutory corporate established in terms of s 3 of the Revenue Authority Act [<i>Chapter 23.11</i>] with case number HC 7141/21, the Applicant filed its Notice of Opposition.  It cannot further be undisputed that on the 12<sup>th</sup> of January 2022 the Respondent served her Notice of Withdrawal of HC 7141/22 and her application under HC 181/22 at the Applicant’s premises on one Vongani at 1502pm.  From the papers filed by the Respondent the Notice of Withdrawal and HC 181/22 were not served personally on the deponent to the Applicant’s founding affidavit who happens to be the Applicant’s legal practitioner. So, it cannot be said with certainty or as a fact that the deponent saw both Respondent’s documents on the 12<sup>th</sup> of January 2022. It can equally not be said with certainty that Mr. Ephraim Mukucha received the Court Application for a Decaratory Order under HC 181/22 on the 13<sup>th</sup> of January 2022 and the Notice of Withdrawal of HC 7141/21 on the 18<sup>th</sup> of January 2022.  Other than the parties’ mere says so none produced return of serve to that effect.  However, the Applicant attached a supporting affidavit from Mr. Stephen Musimike wherein he said among other things-</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:24px; text-align:justify; text-indent:3.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">“5. On the 13<sup>th</sup> of January through an email, I received a Court Application from our Legal Services Division wherein they were seeking instructions to oppose the said court application.</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:24px; text-align:justify; text-indent:3.0pt"> </p> <p style="margin-left:24px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">6. I immediately opened the court application which was an attachment to the email sent to me and perused the same.</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:24px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-left:24px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">7. in the process of going through court application, I realized that the name pf the Applicant on this application was familiar since I had once attended to an almost similar case in December 2021.</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:24px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-left:24px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">8. I noticed that most of the contents of this application were identical to the one that I had deal with in December 2021. As such, I forwarded the same instructions that I sent in December 2021 to the Legal Services Division under the impression that it was the same case that was brought back.</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:24px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-left:24px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">9. On 14<sup>th</sup> January 2022, I received an email with attached edited opposing affidavit by our legal division and upon opening it I assumed that it was the same affidavit that I had send them earlier on. I must hasten to state that I did not find it necessary to respond to this email as was of the view that the matter was already deal with and the email could have been sent by mistake.</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:24px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-left:24px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">10. On 28<sup>th</sup> March 2022 in the morning, I was shocked when I received a call from Mr. Mukucha advising that a default judgment was entered against the Applicant under HC 181/22 due to the failure to file an opposing affidavit.</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:24px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-left:24px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">11. I was honestly taken back by this latest development when I also realized that the case that resulted in a default judgment was different from the December 2021 aforesaid and that the two had different case numbers….” </span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:24px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-left:24px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">What constitutes urgency was clearly expressed in the celebrated case of KUVAREGA v REGISTRAR GENERAL AND ANOR 1998 (1) ZLR 188 at 189 and many more cases that follow to the effect that-</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:24px; text-align:justify; text-indent:23.25pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">“What constitutes urgency is not only the imminent arrival of the day of reckoning, a matter is urgent, if at the time the need to act arises, the matter cannot wait. Urgency which stems from a deliberate or careless abstention from action until the deadline arises is not the type of urgency contemplated by the rules. Where there has been a delay this must be explained in the founding affidavit.”</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:24px; text-align:justify; text-indent:23.25pt"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:18.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The Respondent submitted that urgency in this matter is self-created and stemmed from a deliberate abstention from taking appropriate action until execution is imminent.  <i>In casu</i>, my view is that the Applicant’s failure to file opposing papers in HC 181/22 are not deliberate in any manner.  The reasons why the Applicant failed to file papers were explained in the founding affidavit to the application for rescission.  The deponent to the founding affidavit explained that he received the notice of withdrawal of HC 1741/ 21 on a later date from the clerk on the 18<sup>th</sup> of January 2022 as he was already preparing opposing papers for HC 181/22.  This explains the mix up why he mistakenly thought the application for declaratory order was the one being withdrawn. It could have been a result of the fact that the clerk missed the one page that contained the Notice of withdrawal which was independent from the court application.  These kind of mistakes are very common in practice and the Respondent need to understand that even the Registrar miss file papers after mixing up case numbers.  For purposes of the instant application the need to act arose when the Applicant was alerted of the default judgment on the 24<sup>th</sup> of March 2022 and the Applicant swiftly acted to protect its interests by filing an application seeking to set aside the default judgment.  It is not correct that when Applicant received the Court Application in HC 181/22 it sat on its laurels doing nothing. It is unfortunate that the counsel for the Applicant was not diligent enough to check the case numbers due to the pressure of work but this is excusable as it is within human experience. For these reasons I dismiss the first preliminary point.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:18.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The second preliminary point raised by the Respondent is that the Form used by the Applicant for the urgent chamber application is fatally defective because in terms of Rule 60 (1) of the High Court Rules, 2021 where a chamber application is to be served on an interested party, it shall be in Form No. 23 with appropriate modifications.  Hence the Form used is alien to this court as it is even not Form 25 for urgent chamber applications which are not served on an interested party.  The Respondent that the application be struck of the roll of urgent matters. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:18.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The Applicant maintained that it used the correct Form but the other portion of the Form was wrongly attached by the clerk who was assigned to bundle the application.  The court was referred to p 5 of the application where the end paragraph of the Form was attached instead of p 2.  In any case the Applicant submitted that the Respondent is not prejudiced in any manner because it was served hence their appearance in court.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:18.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The court indeed noted that the Form used by the Applicant which is on p 1 of the application is appropriate one up para 7 at the bottom. Paragraph 8 on the top is on page 2 which contains the signature of the Legal practitioner who prepared the application. But a look at p 5 shows that it started with para 8 at the top and contains an invitation to the Respondent to file a notice of opposition in Form 24 of the High Court Rules, 2021 together with one or more supporting affidavits. Paragraph 8 on p 5 also contains a notice to the Respondent that if she did not file opposing affidavit or appear at the hearing if the matter is set down, the matter would be heard without further notice to the Respondent.  Clearly the was a mistake on bundling the papers but otherwise the correct Form was used.  I will not labour much on this point but dismiss the second preliminary point as having no merit. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:18.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The third preliminary point taken by the Respondent was that the application fails to comply with requirements for an urgent chamber application as it is not accompanied by a certificate of urgency from a legal practitioner. The Respondent said the purported certificate of urgency appearing on page 4-5 of the present application was not signed by Takudzwa Mutamba and the portions for the signature was not clearly meant for him.  The Applicant prayed that this application be struck off for failure to comply with rules of this Honourable Court.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:18.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The Applicant maintained that the certificate of urgency was properly signed by the legal practitioner. It is only that the administrative clerk omitted to attach the signed page and placed a wrong page. It said as is apparent from the signed page it is clear that the signed portion form part of the form of the chamber application.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:18.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">As I explained in the second preliminary point there was a mix up in that on p 6 is the certificate of urgency. The certificate of urgency end at the bottom with para 7 and continued on the following page with para 8 at the top but containing the signature for a different document.  Again, it is clear who ever stapled the file made a mistake.  The Applicant asked the court to condone what seemed to be a failure to comply with the Rules.  The respondent argued that that which is a nullity cannot be condoned.  However, having noted that the error lies in paginations the court will exercise its discretion and condone the mistake made in bundling documents, otherwise the certificate of urgency was signed by a legal practitioner.  I will accordingly dismiss the third preliminary point.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:18.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">On the merits this is an Urgent Chamber Application for stay of execution of the court order under HC 181/22 pending the finalization of an application for rescission of default judgment filed by the Applicant under HC 2123/22.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:18.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">At the heart of the dispute between Applicant and Respondent is whether or not the Respondent qualified for an immigrant’s rebate upon her return to Zimbabwe from the United Kingdom sometime in October 2020.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:18.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Respondent’s application for an immigrant rebate was first rejected by the Applicant’s Station Manager on the 27<sup>th</sup> of October 2020 on the basis that Respondent’s passport was altered. The decision was taken despite Respondent’s explanation on the circumstances under which the passport was tempered with by an unnamed Zimbabwean in the United Kingdom. Respondent appealed to Applicant’s Harare Regional Manager, but the appeal was dismissed.  She further appealed to the Commissioner, Customs and Excise and finally to the Commissioner General and all the appeals were dismissed on the basis that Respondent’s passport was altered. Throughout the appeals the Respondent stressed the point that her right to an immigrant’s rebate is regulated by the provisions of s 105 of the Customs and Excise (General) Regulations, S.I. 154 of 2001. She drew the attention of Applicant to the fact that she had been in the United Kingdom for more than two years before deciding to return to Zimbabwe.  She presented her Statement of Account for rentals at the Flat where she lived, which account was running from 31<sup>st</sup> of March 2008 until 5 October 2020 when she decided to return to Zimbabwe. She further presented evidence of termination of her employment in the United Kingdom on the 31<sup>st</sup> of January 2020 and that the Range Rover Motor Vehicle she imported and in respect of the rebate she was claiming. She further presented evidence that the vehicle was in existence, was hers and was fully paid for before arrival in Zimbabwe as well as the household goods she imported and claimed a rebate. But all this was in vain despite that the Department of Immigration accepted that she was a returning resident. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:18.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The Applicant’s position is that it can only tell if indeed the Respondent was out of Zimbabwe for more than two years by looking at the date she departed from Zimbabwe and the date she returned in terms of s 105 of the Customs and Excise (General) Regulations, S.I.154 of 2001. The Applicant said this is impossible because the Respondent’s passport is altered and dates are not clear.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:18.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">As a result of the denials the Respondent filed a court application under HC 7141/22 on the 13<sup>th</sup> of December 2021 which was opposed by the Applicant. She filed a notice of withdrawal of the same case and filed HC 181/22 on the same day.  The Applicant proceeded to prepare a Notice of Opposition to HC 181/22 but did not file it timeously for the reasons already explained above in this judgment. On the 16<sup>th</sup> of February 2022 Respondent obtained a default judgment against the Applicant in HC 181/22.  On the <b>34<sup>th</sup></b> of March 2022 the Respondent’s legal practitioners addressed a letter to the Applicant demanding a refund of the duties paid as ordered by the court under HC 2123/22 failure of which appropriate action was to be taken.  The letter was brought to the attention of the Applicant’s legal practitioners who proceeded to file the present urgent chamber application on the 1<sup>st</sup> of April 2022 on the grounds that the 7 days ultimatum for complying with the demands in the letter was lapsing on the same day.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The Respondent submitted that the Issues for determination in this matter are-</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <ol><li style="text-align:justify; margin-left:8px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Whether or not the matter is urgent.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li style="text-align:justify; margin-left:8px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Whether or not the urgent chamber application is fatally defective and</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px; margin-left:8px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Whether or not Applicant has any prospects of success in the application for rescission of the default judgment.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:18.0pt; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">I have already dealt with the first two issues when I was dealing with the preliminary points. My findings were that the matter is urgent and not fatally defective.  I need not repeat the same reasoning. I will however, look at the last issue more closely.  The question whether or not one is entitled to an immigrant’s rebate is provided by law through s 105 of the Custom and Excise (General) Regulations, S.I. 154 of 2001.  The relevant part of the section reads as follows-</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">       “105. Rebate of duty on immigrant’s effects</span></span></span></span></p> <ol><li style="text-align:justify; margin-left:8px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">In this Section –</span></span></span></span></li> </ol><ol style="list-style-type:lower-alpha"><li style="text-align:justify; margin-left:8px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">…</span></span></span></span></li> <li style="text-align:justify; margin-left:8px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">…</span></span></span></span></li> <li style="text-align:justify; margin-left:8px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">…</span></span></span></span></li> <li style="text-align:justify; margin-left:8px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">for the purpose of attending any educational institution</span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:24px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">and including the spouse of such persons, but excludes any person who has previously resided or been employed in Zimbabwe, unless such a person is returning to Zimbabwe after having resided outside Zimbabwe for a period of not less than two years or any shorter period as may be approved by the Minister.”</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:24px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:18.0pt; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">So, for a person to be entitled to an immigrant’s rebate the person must have resided outside Zimbabwe for a period not less than two years, or any shorter period as approved by the Minister. Section 120 Subsection (1) as read with Subsection (4) of the Customs and Excise Act provide for Regulations that deal with rebates and the conditions and requirements which must be met by an immigrant to qualify for such a rebate.  The relevant provisions of the Customs and Excise Act state that:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:24px; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.5pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">“(4) Regulations referred to in subsection (1) may provide that any suspension, drawback, rebate, remission or refund of duty shall be subject to such condition, restriction or other requirement referred to therein, as may be approved by the Minister and additionally, or alternatively, the Commissioner.”</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:24px; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.5pt"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:18.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The Respondent submitted among other things that in terms of s 105 of the Regulations an immigrant must meet the following conditions to qualify for a rebate- he or she must have resided outside Zimbabwe for a period of not less than 2 years.  She submitted that she met this and other conditions and the Applicant does not dispute this fact.  One wonders on the legal basis of Applicant denying Respondent a rebate. Applicant’s decision is contradicting a decision taken by the Immigration Department which accepted Respondent as a returning resident, it is this level of unreasonableness that the Honourable is urged to dismiss the application with costs on a higher scale.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:18.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The Applicant on the other hand submitted the issues to be decided in this case for the case to be granted. This include-</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <ol><li style="text-align:justify; margin-left:8px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">irreparable harm,</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li style="text-align:justify; margin-left:8px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">strong prospects of success.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li style="text-align:justify; margin-left:8px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Urgency of the matter,</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px; margin-left:8px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Preponderance of equities if the application is granted or denied. </span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:18.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"> In respect of the prospects of success the Applicant submitted that the Respondent does not meet the requirements for the granting of a rebate as required by the law. That is so because the Respondent failed to submit valid documents in the form of a passport, instead, she submitted a passport with altered dates on the Immigration Control stamp impression. Once a passport is altered or tampered with, it ceases to be a valid document for any purpose including claiming a rebate.  Hence the application enjoys prospects of success. In the premises the Applicant has made out a good case for the stay of execution of HC 181/22 pending the finalization of HC 2123/22 and prayed for the application to be granted as the draft order. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:18.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">It is not in dispute that for a person to be awarded immigration rebate the person must have lived out of Zimbabwe for a period in excess of two years or any shorter period as approved by the Minister.  I agree with the counsel for the Applicant that it is difficult for the Applicant to determine whether the Respondent resided outside the country for more than two years because her passport is altered or tempered with on the immigration stamps.  The dates on the stamps are the once that determine when one left and returned to Zimbabwe.  The Respondent does not deny that her passport is altered though it is said that was done by some other Zimbabwean in the United Kingdom.  The Applicant has successfully explained the reason for failing to file its opposing papers on time.  In view of the fact that the Applicant enjoys prospects of success on the main matters, the application is granted. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">IT IS ORDERED THAT</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><u><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">TERMS OF THE FINAL ORDER SOUGHT</span></span></span></u></b></span></span></span></p> <ol><li style="text-align:justify; margin-left:8px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The Provisional Order is hereby confirmed.  </span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li style="text-align:justify; margin-left:8px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The execution of order issued in favour of Respondent under HC 181/22 be and is hereby stayed pending the final determination of HC 2123/22.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px; margin-left:8px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The cost of this application shall be costs in the cause under the application pending before this honorable court under the said Case No. HC 2123/22</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><u><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">INTERIM RELIEF GRANTED</span></span></span></u></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">THAT PENDING the determination of this matter the Applicant is granted the following relief:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <ol><li style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px; margin-left:8px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">That the Respondent is hereby prohibited and interdicted from any further enforcement or execution of the order issued by this court on the 16<sup>th</sup> of February 2022 under Case No. HC 181/22.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><u><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">SERVICE OF THE PROVISIONAL ORDER</span></span></span></u></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Service of this provisional order shall be affected by delivery of a copy of the provisional order by an employee of the applicant’s legal practitioners at the offices of the respondent’s specified in the urgent chamber application notice.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">ZIMRA Legal Services Division</span></span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">, applicant’s legal practitioners</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Tadiwa &amp; Associates</span></span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">, respondent’s legal practitioners.                   </span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">           </span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"> </p> </div> <div class="views-element-container"><div class="view view-eva view-download-conditional view-id-download_conditional view-display-id-entity_view_1 js-view-dom-id-bb8d087fb7048d1336e98634677aa517d2d0a040fd302e03eca1c71641b95bc4"> <div><div class="views-field views-field-views-conditional-field"><span class="field-content"><p align="right" class="MsoHeader" style="text-align:right"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">HH 252-22</span></span></p> <p align="right" class="MsoHeader" style="text-align:right"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">CASE No. HC 2154/22</span></span></p> <p align="right" class="MsoHeader" style="text-align:right"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">REF CASE No. HC 2123/22</span></span></p> <p align="right" class="MsoHeader" style="text-align:right"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">X-REF CASE No. HC 181/22</span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">ZIMBABWE REVENUE AUTHORITY</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">versus</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">ARRETA CHIDODO</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="tab-stops:422.25pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE                                                                                      </span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">TAGU J</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">HARARE, 7 &amp; 20 APRIL 2022</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Urgent Chamber Application</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">E Mukucha with A Makombero, R Chirikure, T E Marange, S. Mupindike,</span></span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"> for the applicant</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">N P Pabwe with T F Chimbadzo</span></span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">, for the respondent</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"> TAGU J: The Applicant approached this Honourable Court on the 1<sup>st</sup> of April 2022 with an Urgent Chamber Application for stay of execution of the court order HC 181/22 pending the finalization of an application for rescission of default judgment filed by the Applicant under HC 2123/22.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The factual background leading to this Urgent Chamber Application is briefly summarized hereunder.  On the 13<sup>th</sup> of December 2021 the Respondent filed a Court Application to set aside the decision of the Applicant to refuse the Respondent an immigration rebate under HC 7141/21.  On the 5<sup>th</sup> of January 2021 the Applicant filed its opposing papers in HC 7141/21 opposing the relief that was being sought by the Respondent.  On 12 January 2022 the Respondent filed another Court Application for a Declaratory Order under HC 181/22.  While the Applicant was preparing opposing papers in respect of HC 181/22 it received a Notice of withdrawal from the Respondent. The Applicant’s counsel perused the notice of withdrawal and noticed that the same parties in the case that the Applicant had prepared the opposing papers and the founding affidavit were the same and he made the wrong conclusion that it was case HC 181/22 that was being withdrawn when in actual fact it was HC 7141/21. The Applicant’s counsel then continued working on an appeal in respect of another case he was handling on the mistaken belief that HC 181/22 had been withdrawn. On the 24<sup>th</sup> of March 2022 at around 8pm the Applicant’s counsel was in Victoria Falls when he received an email from his office with an attachment of a letter from the Respondent’s Legal Practitioners.  It then dawned to him that a default judgment was entered against the Applicant in respect of HC 181/22. The Applicant did not waste time but filed an application for rescission of the default judgment under HC 2123/22 which was filed on the 29<sup>th</sup> of March 2022. The Applicant then proceeded to file the present urgent chamber application for stay of execution of HC 181/22 in terms of Rule 60 of the High Court Rules, 2021 on the 1<sup>st</sup> of April 2022. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The Applicant is seeking the following provisional order-</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b>           </b><b><u><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">“TERMS OF THE FINAL ORDER SOUGHT</span></u></b></span></span></span></p> <ol><li style="text-align:justify; margin-left:8px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">The Provisional Order is hereby confirmed. </span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"> </p> <ol start="2"><li style="text-align:justify; margin-left:8px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">The execution of the order issued in favour of Respondent under HC 181/22 be and is hereby stayed pending the final determination of HC 2123/22.</span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:48px"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"> </p> <ol start="3"><li style="text-align:justify; margin-left:8px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">The costs of this application shall be costs in the cause under the applications pending before the Honourable court under the said Case No. HC 2123/22.</span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:18.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">THAT PENDING the determination of this matter the Applicant is granted the following relief:-</span></span></span></span></p> <ol><li style="text-align:justify; margin-left:8px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">That the Respondent is hereby prohibited and interdicted from any further enforcement or execution of the order issued by this court on 16 February 2022 under Case No. HC 181/22</span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"> </p> <p style="margin-left:24px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><u><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">SERVICE OF THE PROVISIONAL ORDER</span></u></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:24px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">Service of this provisional order shall be effected by delivery of a copy of the provisional order by an employee of the applicant’s legal practitioners at the offices of the respondent’s specified in the urgent chamber application notice.” </span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:18.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">In opposing the application, the Respondent firstly raised three preliminary points which she verily believed are capable of disposing of this matter without the need of going into the merits of the application which is before this court. The parties addressed the court on the preliminary points and later on the merits. I reserved judgment. The following is the judgment of the court. The court will dispose of the preliminary points first before dealing with the merits if need be.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:18.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The respondent’s first preliminary point is that this application is not urgent. She submitted that the urgency in this application is self-created as the Applicant deliberately or carelessly refrained from filing its opposing papers to her Court application for a Declaratory Order under Case number HC 181/22.  She submitted that the need to act in this case arose on the 12<sup>th</sup> of January 2022 after it received her court application under Case number HC 181/22.  Her further submission was that when the deponent to the founding affidavit in the current urgent chamber application Mr. Ephraim Mukucha the legal practitioner who prepared opposing papers to the initial application under Case Number HC 7141/21, must have been aware of the Notice of Withdrawal of HC 7141/21 on the 13<sup>th</sup> of January 2022, and its misleading that he became aware of the filing of the Notice of Withdrawal of case Number HC 7141/22 on the 18<sup>th</sup> of January 2022, 5 days later because both the Notice of Withdrawal and the Court Application were served on the Applicant on the same day. Her further contention was that the said Ephraim Mukucha could not have proceeded to prepare opposing papers for the second application without addressing his mind to the fate of the earlier application involving the same parties and same subject matter.  She prayed that the matter cannot become urgent because of imminent execution, hence the application should be dismissed for lack of urgency.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:18.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The deponent to the Applicant’s application Mr. Mukucha maintained that he received the Notice of Withdrawal of HC 7141/21 on the 18<sup>th</sup> of January 2022 when he had prepared the Notice of Opposition to HC 181/22 and awaiting a Mr. Stephen Musimike for the submission of the signed Notice of Opposition and was busy working on an appeal from the magistrates court to the High Court. He explained that he made the error of noticing that though the parties were the same and matter dealing with the same subject matter, the Case Numbers were different.  He assumed that it was HC 181/22 whose Opposing papers he had prepared that was being withdrawn.  He denied that the Applicant deliberately refrained from filing its Opposing papers to HC 181/22.  The Applicant is prepared to file the same.  He further averred that the need to act only arose on the 24<sup>th</sup> of March 2022 when he was in Victoria Falls on a work-related trip together with the rest of the members of his Legal Division when he received an email from his office with an attachment of a letter from the Respondent’s legal Practitioners.  He did not waste time but prepared the application for rescission of the default judgment filed on 29<sup>th</sup> of March 2022 and the current urgent chamber application for stay of execution filed on the 1<sup>st</sup> of March 2022 respectively. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:18.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The undisputed facts are that when the Respondent served the Applicant, which is a statutory corporate established in terms of s 3 of the Revenue Authority Act [<i>Chapter 23.11</i>] with case number HC 7141/21, the Applicant filed its Notice of Opposition.  It cannot further be undisputed that on the 12<sup>th</sup> of January 2022 the Respondent served her Notice of Withdrawal of HC 7141/22 and her application under HC 181/22 at the Applicant’s premises on one Vongani at 1502pm.  From the papers filed by the Respondent the Notice of Withdrawal and HC 181/22 were not served personally on the deponent to the Applicant’s founding affidavit who happens to be the Applicant’s legal practitioner. So, it cannot be said with certainty or as a fact that the deponent saw both Respondent’s documents on the 12<sup>th</sup> of January 2022. It can equally not be said with certainty that Mr. Ephraim Mukucha received the Court Application for a Decaratory Order under HC 181/22 on the 13<sup>th</sup> of January 2022 and the Notice of Withdrawal of HC 7141/21 on the 18<sup>th</sup> of January 2022.  Other than the parties’ mere says so none produced return of serve to that effect.  However, the Applicant attached a supporting affidavit from Mr. Stephen Musimike wherein he said among other things-</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:24px; text-align:justify; text-indent:3.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">“5. On the 13<sup>th</sup> of January through an email, I received a Court Application from our Legal Services Division wherein they were seeking instructions to oppose the said court application.</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:24px; text-align:justify; text-indent:3.0pt"> </p> <p style="margin-left:24px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">6. I immediately opened the court application which was an attachment to the email sent to me and perused the same.</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:24px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-left:24px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">7. in the process of going through court application, I realized that the name pf the Applicant on this application was familiar since I had once attended to an almost similar case in December 2021.</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:24px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-left:24px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">8. I noticed that most of the contents of this application were identical to the one that I had deal with in December 2021. As such, I forwarded the same instructions that I sent in December 2021 to the Legal Services Division under the impression that it was the same case that was brought back.</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:24px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-left:24px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">9. On 14<sup>th</sup> January 2022, I received an email with attached edited opposing affidavit by our legal division and upon opening it I assumed that it was the same affidavit that I had send them earlier on. I must hasten to state that I did not find it necessary to respond to this email as was of the view that the matter was already deal with and the email could have been sent by mistake.</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:24px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-left:24px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">10. On 28<sup>th</sup> March 2022 in the morning, I was shocked when I received a call from Mr. Mukucha advising that a default judgment was entered against the Applicant under HC 181/22 due to the failure to file an opposing affidavit.</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:24px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-left:24px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">11. I was honestly taken back by this latest development when I also realized that the case that resulted in a default judgment was different from the December 2021 aforesaid and that the two had different case numbers….” </span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:24px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-left:24px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">What constitutes urgency was clearly expressed in the celebrated case of KUVAREGA v REGISTRAR GENERAL AND ANOR 1998 (1) ZLR 188 at 189 and many more cases that follow to the effect that-</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:24px; text-align:justify; text-indent:23.25pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">“What constitutes urgency is not only the imminent arrival of the day of reckoning, a matter is urgent, if at the time the need to act arises, the matter cannot wait. Urgency which stems from a deliberate or careless abstention from action until the deadline arises is not the type of urgency contemplated by the rules. Where there has been a delay this must be explained in the founding affidavit.”</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:24px; text-align:justify; text-indent:23.25pt"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:18.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The Respondent submitted that urgency in this matter is self-created and stemmed from a deliberate abstention from taking appropriate action until execution is imminent.  <i>In casu</i>, my view is that the Applicant’s failure to file opposing papers in HC 181/22 are not deliberate in any manner.  The reasons why the Applicant failed to file papers were explained in the founding affidavit to the application for rescission.  The deponent to the founding affidavit explained that he received the notice of withdrawal of HC 1741/ 21 on a later date from the clerk on the 18<sup>th</sup> of January 2022 as he was already preparing opposing papers for HC 181/22.  This explains the mix up why he mistakenly thought the application for declaratory order was the one being withdrawn. It could have been a result of the fact that the clerk missed the one page that contained the Notice of withdrawal which was independent from the court application.  These kind of mistakes are very common in practice and the Respondent need to understand that even the Registrar miss file papers after mixing up case numbers.  For purposes of the instant application the need to act arose when the Applicant was alerted of the default judgment on the 24<sup>th</sup> of March 2022 and the Applicant swiftly acted to protect its interests by filing an application seeking to set aside the default judgment.  It is not correct that when Applicant received the Court Application in HC 181/22 it sat on its laurels doing nothing. It is unfortunate that the counsel for the Applicant was not diligent enough to check the case numbers due to the pressure of work but this is excusable as it is within human experience. For these reasons I dismiss the first preliminary point.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:18.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The second preliminary point raised by the Respondent is that the Form used by the Applicant for the urgent chamber application is fatally defective because in terms of Rule 60 (1) of the High Court Rules, 2021 where a chamber application is to be served on an interested party, it shall be in Form No. 23 with appropriate modifications.  Hence the Form used is alien to this court as it is even not Form 25 for urgent chamber applications which are not served on an interested party.  The Respondent that the application be struck of the roll of urgent matters. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:18.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The Applicant maintained that it used the correct Form but the other portion of the Form was wrongly attached by the clerk who was assigned to bundle the application.  The court was referred to p 5 of the application where the end paragraph of the Form was attached instead of p 2.  In any case the Applicant submitted that the Respondent is not prejudiced in any manner because it was served hence their appearance in court.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:18.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The court indeed noted that the Form used by the Applicant which is on p 1 of the application is appropriate one up para 7 at the bottom. Paragraph 8 on the top is on page 2 which contains the signature of the Legal practitioner who prepared the application. But a look at p 5 shows that it started with para 8 at the top and contains an invitation to the Respondent to file a notice of opposition in Form 24 of the High Court Rules, 2021 together with one or more supporting affidavits. Paragraph 8 on p 5 also contains a notice to the Respondent that if she did not file opposing affidavit or appear at the hearing if the matter is set down, the matter would be heard without further notice to the Respondent.  Clearly the was a mistake on bundling the papers but otherwise the correct Form was used.  I will not labour much on this point but dismiss the second preliminary point as having no merit. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:18.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The third preliminary point taken by the Respondent was that the application fails to comply with requirements for an urgent chamber application as it is not accompanied by a certificate of urgency from a legal practitioner. The Respondent said the purported certificate of urgency appearing on page 4-5 of the present application was not signed by Takudzwa Mutamba and the portions for the signature was not clearly meant for him.  The Applicant prayed that this application be struck off for failure to comply with rules of this Honourable Court.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:18.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The Applicant maintained that the certificate of urgency was properly signed by the legal practitioner. It is only that the administrative clerk omitted to attach the signed page and placed a wrong page. It said as is apparent from the signed page it is clear that the signed portion form part of the form of the chamber application.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:18.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">As I explained in the second preliminary point there was a mix up in that on p 6 is the certificate of urgency. The certificate of urgency end at the bottom with para 7 and continued on the following page with para 8 at the top but containing the signature for a different document.  Again, it is clear who ever stapled the file made a mistake.  The Applicant asked the court to condone what seemed to be a failure to comply with the Rules.  The respondent argued that that which is a nullity cannot be condoned.  However, having noted that the error lies in paginations the court will exercise its discretion and condone the mistake made in bundling documents, otherwise the certificate of urgency was signed by a legal practitioner.  I will accordingly dismiss the third preliminary point.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:18.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">On the merits this is an Urgent Chamber Application for stay of execution of the court order under HC 181/22 pending the finalization of an application for rescission of default judgment filed by the Applicant under HC 2123/22.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:18.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">At the heart of the dispute between Applicant and Respondent is whether or not the Respondent qualified for an immigrant’s rebate upon her return to Zimbabwe from the United Kingdom sometime in October 2020.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:18.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Respondent’s application for an immigrant rebate was first rejected by the Applicant’s Station Manager on the 27<sup>th</sup> of October 2020 on the basis that Respondent’s passport was altered. The decision was taken despite Respondent’s explanation on the circumstances under which the passport was tempered with by an unnamed Zimbabwean in the United Kingdom. Respondent appealed to Applicant’s Harare Regional Manager, but the appeal was dismissed.  She further appealed to the Commissioner, Customs and Excise and finally to the Commissioner General and all the appeals were dismissed on the basis that Respondent’s passport was altered. Throughout the appeals the Respondent stressed the point that her right to an immigrant’s rebate is regulated by the provisions of s 105 of the Customs and Excise (General) Regulations, S.I. 154 of 2001. She drew the attention of Applicant to the fact that she had been in the United Kingdom for more than two years before deciding to return to Zimbabwe.  She presented her Statement of Account for rentals at the Flat where she lived, which account was running from 31<sup>st</sup> of March 2008 until 5 October 2020 when she decided to return to Zimbabwe. She further presented evidence of termination of her employment in the United Kingdom on the 31<sup>st</sup> of January 2020 and that the Range Rover Motor Vehicle she imported and in respect of the rebate she was claiming. She further presented evidence that the vehicle was in existence, was hers and was fully paid for before arrival in Zimbabwe as well as the household goods she imported and claimed a rebate. But all this was in vain despite that the Department of Immigration accepted that she was a returning resident. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:18.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The Applicant’s position is that it can only tell if indeed the Respondent was out of Zimbabwe for more than two years by looking at the date she departed from Zimbabwe and the date she returned in terms of s 105 of the Customs and Excise (General) Regulations, S.I.154 of 2001. The Applicant said this is impossible because the Respondent’s passport is altered and dates are not clear.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:18.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">As a result of the denials the Respondent filed a court application under HC 7141/22 on the 13<sup>th</sup> of December 2021 which was opposed by the Applicant. She filed a notice of withdrawal of the same case and filed HC 181/22 on the same day.  The Applicant proceeded to prepare a Notice of Opposition to HC 181/22 but did not file it timeously for the reasons already explained above in this judgment. On the 16<sup>th</sup> of February 2022 Respondent obtained a default judgment against the Applicant in HC 181/22.  On the <b>34<sup>th</sup></b> of March 2022 the Respondent’s legal practitioners addressed a letter to the Applicant demanding a refund of the duties paid as ordered by the court under HC 2123/22 failure of which appropriate action was to be taken.  The letter was brought to the attention of the Applicant’s legal practitioners who proceeded to file the present urgent chamber application on the 1<sup>st</sup> of April 2022 on the grounds that the 7 days ultimatum for complying with the demands in the letter was lapsing on the same day.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The Respondent submitted that the Issues for determination in this matter are-</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <ol><li style="text-align:justify; margin-left:8px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Whether or not the matter is urgent.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li style="text-align:justify; margin-left:8px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Whether or not the urgent chamber application is fatally defective and</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px; margin-left:8px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Whether or not Applicant has any prospects of success in the application for rescission of the default judgment.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:18.0pt; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">I have already dealt with the first two issues when I was dealing with the preliminary points. My findings were that the matter is urgent and not fatally defective.  I need not repeat the same reasoning. I will however, look at the last issue more closely.  The question whether or not one is entitled to an immigrant’s rebate is provided by law through s 105 of the Custom and Excise (General) Regulations, S.I. 154 of 2001.  The relevant part of the section reads as follows-</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">       “105. Rebate of duty on immigrant’s effects</span></span></span></span></p> <ol><li style="text-align:justify; margin-left:8px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">In this Section –</span></span></span></span></li> </ol><ol style="list-style-type:lower-alpha"><li style="text-align:justify; margin-left:8px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">…</span></span></span></span></li> <li style="text-align:justify; margin-left:8px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">…</span></span></span></span></li> <li style="text-align:justify; margin-left:8px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">…</span></span></span></span></li> <li style="text-align:justify; margin-left:8px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">for the purpose of attending any educational institution</span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:24px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">and including the spouse of such persons, but excludes any person who has previously resided or been employed in Zimbabwe, unless such a person is returning to Zimbabwe after having resided outside Zimbabwe for a period of not less than two years or any shorter period as may be approved by the Minister.”</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:24px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:18.0pt; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">So, for a person to be entitled to an immigrant’s rebate the person must have resided outside Zimbabwe for a period not less than two years, or any shorter period as approved by the Minister. Section 120 Subsection (1) as read with Subsection (4) of the Customs and Excise Act provide for Regulations that deal with rebates and the conditions and requirements which must be met by an immigrant to qualify for such a rebate.  The relevant provisions of the Customs and Excise Act state that:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:24px; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.5pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">“(4) Regulations referred to in subsection (1) may provide that any suspension, drawback, rebate, remission or refund of duty shall be subject to such condition, restriction or other requirement referred to therein, as may be approved by the Minister and additionally, or alternatively, the Commissioner.”</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:24px; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.5pt"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:18.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The Respondent submitted among other things that in terms of s 105 of the Regulations an immigrant must meet the following conditions to qualify for a rebate- he or she must have resided outside Zimbabwe for a period of not less than 2 years.  She submitted that she met this and other conditions and the Applicant does not dispute this fact.  One wonders on the legal basis of Applicant denying Respondent a rebate. Applicant’s decision is contradicting a decision taken by the Immigration Department which accepted Respondent as a returning resident, it is this level of unreasonableness that the Honourable is urged to dismiss the application with costs on a higher scale.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:18.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The Applicant on the other hand submitted the issues to be decided in this case for the case to be granted. This include-</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <ol><li style="text-align:justify; margin-left:8px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">irreparable harm,</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li style="text-align:justify; margin-left:8px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">strong prospects of success.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li style="text-align:justify; margin-left:8px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Urgency of the matter,</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px; margin-left:8px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Preponderance of equities if the application is granted or denied. </span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:18.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"> In respect of the prospects of success the Applicant submitted that the Respondent does not meet the requirements for the granting of a rebate as required by the law. That is so because the Respondent failed to submit valid documents in the form of a passport, instead, she submitted a passport with altered dates on the Immigration Control stamp impression. Once a passport is altered or tampered with, it ceases to be a valid document for any purpose including claiming a rebate.  Hence the application enjoys prospects of success. In the premises the Applicant has made out a good case for the stay of execution of HC 181/22 pending the finalization of HC 2123/22 and prayed for the application to be granted as the draft order. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:18.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">It is not in dispute that for a person to be awarded immigration rebate the person must have lived out of Zimbabwe for a period in excess of two years or any shorter period as approved by the Minister.  I agree with the counsel for the Applicant that it is difficult for the Applicant to determine whether the Respondent resided outside the country for more than two years because her passport is altered or tempered with on the immigration stamps.  The dates on the stamps are the once that determine when one left and returned to Zimbabwe.  The Respondent does not deny that her passport is altered though it is said that was done by some other Zimbabwean in the United Kingdom.  The Applicant has successfully explained the reason for failing to file its opposing papers on time.  In view of the fact that the Applicant enjoys prospects of success on the main matters, the application is granted. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">IT IS ORDERED THAT</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><u><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">TERMS OF THE FINAL ORDER SOUGHT</span></span></span></u></b></span></span></span></p> <ol><li style="text-align:justify; margin-left:8px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The Provisional Order is hereby confirmed.  </span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li style="text-align:justify; margin-left:8px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The execution of order issued in favour of Respondent under HC 181/22 be and is hereby stayed pending the final determination of HC 2123/22.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px; margin-left:8px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The cost of this application shall be costs in the cause under the application pending before this honorable court under the said Case No. HC 2123/22</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><u><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">INTERIM RELIEF GRANTED</span></span></span></u></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">THAT PENDING the determination of this matter the Applicant is granted the following relief:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <ol><li style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px; margin-left:8px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">That the Respondent is hereby prohibited and interdicted from any further enforcement or execution of the order issued by this court on the 16<sup>th</sup> of February 2022 under Case No. HC 181/22.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><u><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">SERVICE OF THE PROVISIONAL ORDER</span></span></span></u></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Service of this provisional order shall be affected by delivery of a copy of the provisional order by an employee of the applicant’s legal practitioners at the offices of the respondent’s specified in the urgent chamber application notice.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">ZIMRA Legal Services Division</span></span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">, applicant’s legal practitioners</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Tadiwa &amp; Associates</span></span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">, respondent’s legal practitioners.                   </span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">           </span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"> </p></span></div></div> </div> </div> Wed, 04 May 2022 13:59:42 +0000 Sandra Muengwa 12418 at http://www.zimlii.org Du Toit v Mushambi and Another (237 of 2022) [2022] ZWHHC 237 (13 April 2022); http://www.zimlii.org/zw/judgment/harare-high-court/2022/237 <span class="field field--name-title field--type-string field--label-hidden">Du Toit v Mushambi and Another (237 of 2022) [2022] ZWHHC 237 (13 April 2022);</span> <div class="field field--name-field-flynote field--type-entity-reference field--label-above"> <div class="field__label">Flynote</div> <div class='field__items'> <div class="field__item"><a href="/taxonomy/term/2287" hreflang="x-default">Bar (PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE)</a></div> <div class="field__item"><a href="/taxonomy/term/1628" hreflang="en">Default Judgment</a></div> <div class="field__item"><a href="/taxonomy/term/1633" hreflang="en">Execution</a></div> <div class="field__item"><a href="/taxonomy/term/1657" hreflang="en">Stay of Execution</a></div> <div class="field__item"><a href="/taxonomy/term/2208" hreflang="x-default">claim for eviction (Summary judgment)</a></div> <div class="field__item"><a href="/taxonomy/term/2373" hreflang="x-default">Deceased estate</a></div> <div class="field__item"><a href="/taxonomy/term/2269" hreflang="x-default">Urgent Application</a></div> <div class="field__item"><a href="/taxonomy/term/2271" hreflang="x-default">what constitutes urgency (Urgent application)</a></div> <div class="field__item"><a href="/taxonomy/term/2272" hreflang="x-default">when may be made (Urgent application)</a></div> </div> </div> <span class="field field--name-uid field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden"><span>Sandra Muengwa</span></span> <span class="field field--name-created field--type-created field--label-hidden">Tue, 04/26/2022 - 10:27</span> <div class="field field--name-field-files field--type-file field--label-above"> <div class="field__label">Download</div> <div class='field__items'> <div class="field__item"> <span class="file file--mime-application-vnd-openxmlformats-officedocument-wordprocessingml-document file--x-office-document"> <a href="https://media.zimlii.org/files/judgments/zwhhc/2022/237/2022-zwhhc-237.docx" type="application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document; length=23993">2022-zwhhc-237.docx</a></span> </div> <div class="field__item"> <span class="file file--mime-application-pdf file--application-pdf"> <a href="https://media.zimlii.org/files/judgments/zwhhc/2022/237/2022-zwhhc-237.pdf" type="application/pdf; length=333836">2022-zwhhc-237.pdf</a></span> </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-body field--type-text-with-summary field--label-hidden field__item"><p class="MsoNoSpacing text-align-right"> </p> <p align="right" class="MsoHeader" style="text-align:right"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">1<sdtpr></sdtpr></span></span></p> <p align="right" class="MsoHeader" style="text-align:right"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">HH 237-22</span></span></p> <p align="right" class="MsoHeader" style="text-align:right"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">HC 2106/21</span></span></p> <p align="right" class="MsoHeader" style="text-align:right"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">REF CASE  4742/21</span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">DANIEL FRANCOIS DU TOIT</span></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">versus </span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">GEORGE MUSHAMBI</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">and</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">THE SHERIFF OF THE HIGH COURT N.O</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">TAGU J</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">HARARE, 1 &amp; 13 April 2022</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"> </p> <p style="margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Urgent Chamber Application</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">O. Kondongwe</span></span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">, for applicant</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">S.T. Mtema with J. Mugogo</span></span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">, for respondent</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">                     TAGU J: The Applicant approached this court on an urgent basis seeking an urgent temporary relief for stay of execution by interdicting the Second Respondent from proceeding with his ejectment from Lot 1 of Odzi Drift Estate in Mutasa District of Manicaland Province on the strength of a writ of ejectment issued under case No. HC 4742/21 pending the return date whereupon Applicant will seek the suspension of the said writ of execution pending the final and definitive determination of an application for rescission of the default judgment which has been filed by the Applicant under HC 2086/22.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The facts are that on the 15<sup>th</sup> of September 2021, the first Respondent who is a holder of a SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY issued by the Executor to the estate of the Late Christopher Francis Mushambi to act over the affairs of a certain farm being ODZI DRIFT ESTATE, flied summons against the Applicant in this Court at Harare under HC 4742/21 for the eviction of the Applicant from the said farm on the basis that the oral joint venture agreement that the Applicant had with the late Christopher Francis Mushambi expired upon the demise of Christopher Francis Mushambi on the 15<sup>th</sup> of November 2020. The summons for eviction was served on the Applicant at his premises by “affixing to a screen gate after hooting and knocking”.  Having been served with the summons as aforesaid the Applicant’s <i>dies induciae</i> of ten days within which to file a notice of appearance to defend expired.  First Respondent proceeded to obtain a default judgment on the 10<sup>th</sup> of November 2021 and a warrant of execution subsequently issued against Applicant’s property.   This issue then came to the Applicant’s light on the 25<sup>th</sup> of March 2022 when the Sheriff of Court attended at Applicant’s premises armed with a warrant of ejectment and carrying out the execution process. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The Applicant proceeded to file a court application for rescission of the default judgment under HC 2086/22 on the 22<sup>nd</sup> of March 2022.  He proceeded to file the present urgent chamber application interdicting the second Respondent from proceeding with his execution from Lot 1 of Odzi Drift Estate in Mutasa District of Manicaland Province on the strength of a writ of ejectment issued under case No. HC 4742/21 pending the return date.  The Applicant in his founding affidavit submitted that neither him, nor people residing at the said farm saw the summons hence he is not in willful default.  Further he submitted that had he seen the summons he would have filed a notice of opposition since he has a defence to the main action under HC 4742/21 and the application for rescission under HC 2086/22 that he had an oral joint venture agreement with the late Christopher Francis Mushambi on the farm known as Lot 1 of Odzi Drift Estate in Mutasa District of Manicaland Province he entered into sometime in 2021 and was meant to subsist for five years.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The provisional order being sought by the Applicant is couched in the following terms-</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">          “<b>TERMS OF FINAL ORDER SOUGHT</b></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">That you show cause to the Honourable Court why a final order should not be made in the following terms-</span></span></span></span></p> <ol><li style="text-align:justify; margin-left:8px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">The writ of ejectment sued out by the first Respondent pursuant to the court order granted in case number HC 4742/21 be and is hereby set aside.</span></span></span></span></li> <li style="text-align:justify; margin-left:8px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">The first Respondent shall pay costs of suit for this application.</span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">INTERIM RELIEF GRANTED</span></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">Pending the return date, the Applicant is granted the following relief-</span></span></span></span></p> <ol><li style="text-align:justify; margin-left:8px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">The writ of ejectment sued out by the first Respondent pursuant to the court order granted in case number HC 4742/21, be and is hereby suspended pending the outcome of HC 2086/22.</span></span></span></span></li> <li style="text-align:justify; margin-left:8px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">The second Respondent or any of his officers or agents be and are hereby ordered to forthwith desist with any and all execution process and not to eject the Applicant pursuant to the writ of ejectment sued out by the first Respondent under case number HC 2086/22.</span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">SERVICE OF PROVISIONAL ORDER</span></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">This provisional order shall be served on the Respondent by the Applicant’s legal practitioners or by a person in the employ of the Applicant’s legal practitioners or by the Deputy Sheriff.”</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The first Respondent filed a Notice of opposition to the application.  In the Notice of Opposition the first Respondent raised some points <i>in limine</i>.  The first point <i>in limine</i> being that of lack of cause of action due to Statutory illegality, the second attacked the Form used as not being in compliance with Form 25, and the third being that the relief sought in paragraph 2 is final and definitive in nature and that the matter is not urgent, hence the application is fatally defective.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The Counsel for the Applicant made oral opposition to the points <i>in limine</i>.  I will dispose of the points <i>in limine</i> first before dealing with the merits of the application.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The first Respondent’s argument was that the entire Chamber Application is premised on the fact that the Applicant seeks to argue on the main that he has a valid oral joint venture agreement which oral agreement is illegal by reason of statutory prohibition and cannot found a cause.  He said the Applicant is seeking to approach this Court on Urgent basis considering the fact that incidents being complained of do not warrant being placed in this forum on an urgent basis and he is clearly abusing of court process.  He said the Applicant is well aware that an oral joint venture agreement is unlawful in terms of the provisions of the Agricultural Land Settlement (Permit Terms and Conditions) Regulations 2014 which specifically prohibit the entering into partnerships farm without the approval of the Minister.  He submitted that whatever oral agreement the Applicant had with the Late Dr.  Christopher Francis Mushambi was void.  The Applicant’s so –called oral agreement does not meet the requirements of Agricultural Land Settlement (Permit Terms and Conditions) Regulations 2014 and is in direct breach of such regulations by its very nature.  That illegal oral agreement cannot create urgency let alone give the Applicant a bona fide defence in the rescission because it is an illegality.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The counsel for the Applicant submitted that all the preliminary points taken have nothing to do with urgency for an application of this nature.  He said the first Respondent is inviting the court to revisit merits on the substantive issues.  He said further that on validity or otherwise of oral joint venture agreement this is an issue to be examined as substantive issue and not as point <i>in limine</i>.  This court cannot make a finding on the validity of oral venture agreement.  This point must be argued on the merits of the matter.  The court must decide whether a prima facie case has been established.  The application for rescission cannot be determined on prima facie case.  He referred to the case of <i>Transfrontier Investments (Private) Limited</i> v <i>Bond Crown Investment</i> HH 671/21.  Commenting on the Regulations that have been referred to, he said they do not expressly preclude oral joint venture agreements.  He said the regulations say the Minister must consent in writing but this is not for this court to decide. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">In response the counsel for the first Respondent argued that the counsel for the Applicant has conceded that there should be approval by the Minister in writing, and once it has been found as a fact that there is illegality the provisional order cannot be granted, mainly because even in the application for rescission there are no prospects of success hence the first preliminary point should be upheld.  Reference was made to the case of <i>Hativagone &amp; Another</i> v <i>CAG Farms (Pvt) Ltd &amp; Others</i> SC 42/15.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Let me say on the outset that I am not dealing with the summons case HC 4742/21 nor the court application for rescission of default judgment HC 2086/21.  However, in determining the preliminary points raised by the first Respondent I am forced to refer to documents attached by the Applicant and the first Respondent.  It is trite that in general the court is always entitled to make reference to its own records and proceedings brought before it, and to take note of its contents, even in summary judgment proceedings.  Hence I will refer to all documents filed in the record brought before me as I had occasion to read the whole record before setting this matter down for hearing.   For this contention I refer to the case of <i>Mhungu</i> v <i>Mtindi</i> 1986 (2) ZLR 171 (SC). See also <i>The State</i> v <i>Munyaradzi Mawadze</i> HH-273/20 at page 7 of the cyclostyled judgment were the same authority was cited with approval by CHINAMHORA J.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The first preliminary point raised by the first Respondent is that there is no cause of action in the Applicant’s application by virtue of illegality.  The first Respondent submitted that the entire Urgent Chamber Application is premised on the fact that the Applicant seeks to argue on the main that he has a valid oral joint venture agreement which oral agreement is illegal by reason of statutory prohibition and cannot found a cause.  He said the Applicant is well aware that an oral joint venture agreement is unlawful in terms of the provisions of the Agricultural Land Settlement (Permit Terms and Conditions) Regulations 2014, in particular section 7 (1) (b) which specifically prohibit the entering into partnerships farms without the written approval of the Minister.   It is the first Respondent’s contention that that illegal oral agreement cannot create urgency let alone give the Applicant a bona fide defence in the rescission because it is an illegality.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">I had occasion to read the Applicant’s founding affidavit.  In paragraph 10 the Applicant said he intended to defend the action under HC4742/21 as he was not in willful default. Further, in paragraph 11 he said in part-</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">“</span></span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">Furthermore, I content that I have <i>bona fide</i> defence to the Respondent’s action (in HC 4742/21).  The defence arises from the following facts:</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">11.1<b>. </b>I had an oral joint venture agreement between myself and Respondent’s late uncle, Dr. Christopher Francis Mushambi on the farm known as Lot 1 of Odzi Drift Estate in Mutasa District of Manicaland Province.</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">11.2. The Joint venture was entered sometime in 2021 and was meant to subsist for five years. In terms of the joint venture, I had occupied the farm and brought a lot of furniture into the homestead to commence. As such, Respondent has no basis to evict me especially without affording adequate notice of vacation.”</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">(my emphasis)</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">I again read the founding affidavit of the Applicant in respect of the application for rescission in order to establish if indeed the Applicant had a bona fide defence to HC 4742/21 that would entitle him to a stay of execution pending determination of HC 2086/21.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The Applicant reiterated in paragraphs 10 and 10.1 that he a bona fide defence, and had an oral joint venture agreement between himself and Respondent’s late uncle, Dr. Christopher Francis Mushambi on the farm known as Lot 1 of Odzi Drift Estate in Mutasa of Manicaland Province respectively.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The first Respondent is preliminary point is that the oral joint venture agreement was illegal and cannot found a cause. In determining whether the Applicant had a cause of action and whether he has prospects of success entitling him to the relief of a provisional order suspending the writ of execution, I had occasion to read the provisions of section 7(1) (b) of the Agricultural Land Settlement (Permit Terms and Conditions) Regulations (S.I. No. 53 of 2014. The Regulations read as follows-</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">            <span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">“A permit holder shall not –</span></span></span></span></p> <ol style="list-style-type:lower-alpha"><li style="text-align:justify; margin-left:8px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">cede, assign, hypothecate or otherwise alienate or sublet in whole or in part his or her allocated land or enter into a partnership for the working of the allocated without the consent of the Minister.”</span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">In casu</span></span></span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"> the Applicant does not deny that he entered into an oral joint venture agreement with the Late Dr. Christopher Francis Mushambi without the Minister’s written consent.  Clearly whatever agreement Applicant had with the late Christopher Francis Mushambi without the written consent or otherwise of the Minister was an illegality.  No cause of action can be founded on an illegality. I therefore uphold the first Respondent’s point <i>in limine</i>.  Having found as I did that the oral joint venture agreement was an illegality, I need not labour myself to deal with the other points <i>in limine</i> as these will not change anything.  The Applicant enjoys no prospects of success either in the main matter or the application for rescission of the default judgment.  The general principle governing non-compliance with statutory provisions was concisely spelt out by INNES CJ in <i>Schierhout</i> v <i>Minister of Justice</i> 1926 AD 99 at 109:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">“It is a fundamental principle of our law that a thing done contrary to the direct prohibition of the law is void and of no force or effect…And the disregard of a peremptory provision in a statute is fatal to the validity of the proceedings affected.”</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">See also ZMDC and <i>Kamative Mine</i> v <i>Jambata</i> HH 681/21.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            Another point to illustrate that the Applicant does not enjoy prospects of success in the main or rescission application is that the Applicant said the oral joint venture agreement was entered sometime in 2021 yet the Letters of Administration which the Applicant attached says Christopher Francis Mushambi died on the 15<sup>th</sup> of November 2020, I do not see how the Applicant will reconcile this contradiction since he never challenged it.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">IT IS ORDERED THAT</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <ol><li style="text-align:justify; margin-left:8px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The point <i>in limine</i> that there is no cause of action based on illegality is upheld.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li style="text-align:justify; margin-left:8px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The application is dismissed.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li style="text-align:justify; margin-left:8px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Applicant be and is hereby ordered to pay costs.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i> </i></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"> Dube Manikai &amp; Hwacha</span></span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">, applicant’s legal practitioners</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">John Mugogo Attorneys</span></span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">, first respondent’s legal practitioners.                      </span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">                </span></span></span></p> </div> <div class="views-element-container"><div class="view view-eva view-download-conditional view-id-download_conditional view-display-id-entity_view_1 js-view-dom-id-15e300f96e5f5aeb6f95a77b9f433860c46bf0e7706861c8c33bdfd85ab2a920"> <div><div class="views-field views-field-views-conditional-field"><span class="field-content"><p class="MsoNoSpacing text-align-right"> </p> <p align="right" class="MsoHeader" style="text-align:right"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">1<sdtpr></sdtpr></span></span></p> <p align="right" class="MsoHeader" style="text-align:right"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">HH 237-22</span></span></p> <p align="right" class="MsoHeader" style="text-align:right"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">HC 2106/21</span></span></p> <p align="right" class="MsoHeader" style="text-align:right"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">REF CASE  4742/21</span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">DANIEL FRANCOIS DU TOIT</span></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">versus </span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">GEORGE MUSHAMBI</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">and</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">THE SHERIFF OF THE HIGH COURT N.O</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">TAGU J</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">HARARE, 1 &amp; 13 April 2022</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"> </p> <p style="margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Urgent Chamber Application</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">O. Kondongwe</span></span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">, for applicant</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">S.T. Mtema with J. Mugogo</span></span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">, for respondent</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">                     TAGU J: The Applicant approached this court on an urgent basis seeking an urgent temporary relief for stay of execution by interdicting the Second Respondent from proceeding with his ejectment from Lot 1 of Odzi Drift Estate in Mutasa District of Manicaland Province on the strength of a writ of ejectment issued under case No. HC 4742/21 pending the return date whereupon Applicant will seek the suspension of the said writ of execution pending the final and definitive determination of an application for rescission of the default judgment which has been filed by the Applicant under HC 2086/22.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The facts are that on the 15<sup>th</sup> of September 2021, the first Respondent who is a holder of a SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY issued by the Executor to the estate of the Late Christopher Francis Mushambi to act over the affairs of a certain farm being ODZI DRIFT ESTATE, flied summons against the Applicant in this Court at Harare under HC 4742/21 for the eviction of the Applicant from the said farm on the basis that the oral joint venture agreement that the Applicant had with the late Christopher Francis Mushambi expired upon the demise of Christopher Francis Mushambi on the 15<sup>th</sup> of November 2020. The summons for eviction was served on the Applicant at his premises by “affixing to a screen gate after hooting and knocking”.  Having been served with the summons as aforesaid the Applicant’s <i>dies induciae</i> of ten days within which to file a notice of appearance to defend expired.  First Respondent proceeded to obtain a default judgment on the 10<sup>th</sup> of November 2021 and a warrant of execution subsequently issued against Applicant’s property.   This issue then came to the Applicant’s light on the 25<sup>th</sup> of March 2022 when the Sheriff of Court attended at Applicant’s premises armed with a warrant of ejectment and carrying out the execution process. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The Applicant proceeded to file a court application for rescission of the default judgment under HC 2086/22 on the 22<sup>nd</sup> of March 2022.  He proceeded to file the present urgent chamber application interdicting the second Respondent from proceeding with his execution from Lot 1 of Odzi Drift Estate in Mutasa District of Manicaland Province on the strength of a writ of ejectment issued under case No. HC 4742/21 pending the return date.  The Applicant in his founding affidavit submitted that neither him, nor people residing at the said farm saw the summons hence he is not in willful default.  Further he submitted that had he seen the summons he would have filed a notice of opposition since he has a defence to the main action under HC 4742/21 and the application for rescission under HC 2086/22 that he had an oral joint venture agreement with the late Christopher Francis Mushambi on the farm known as Lot 1 of Odzi Drift Estate in Mutasa District of Manicaland Province he entered into sometime in 2021 and was meant to subsist for five years.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The provisional order being sought by the Applicant is couched in the following terms-</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">          “<b>TERMS OF FINAL ORDER SOUGHT</b></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">That you show cause to the Honourable Court why a final order should not be made in the following terms-</span></span></span></span></p> <ol><li style="text-align:justify; margin-left:8px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">The writ of ejectment sued out by the first Respondent pursuant to the court order granted in case number HC 4742/21 be and is hereby set aside.</span></span></span></span></li> <li style="text-align:justify; margin-left:8px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">The first Respondent shall pay costs of suit for this application.</span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">INTERIM RELIEF GRANTED</span></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">Pending the return date, the Applicant is granted the following relief-</span></span></span></span></p> <ol><li style="text-align:justify; margin-left:8px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">The writ of ejectment sued out by the first Respondent pursuant to the court order granted in case number HC 4742/21, be and is hereby suspended pending the outcome of HC 2086/22.</span></span></span></span></li> <li style="text-align:justify; margin-left:8px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">The second Respondent or any of his officers or agents be and are hereby ordered to forthwith desist with any and all execution process and not to eject the Applicant pursuant to the writ of ejectment sued out by the first Respondent under case number HC 2086/22.</span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">SERVICE OF PROVISIONAL ORDER</span></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">This provisional order shall be served on the Respondent by the Applicant’s legal practitioners or by a person in the employ of the Applicant’s legal practitioners or by the Deputy Sheriff.”</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The first Respondent filed a Notice of opposition to the application.  In the Notice of Opposition the first Respondent raised some points <i>in limine</i>.  The first point <i>in limine</i> being that of lack of cause of action due to Statutory illegality, the second attacked the Form used as not being in compliance with Form 25, and the third being that the relief sought in paragraph 2 is final and definitive in nature and that the matter is not urgent, hence the application is fatally defective.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The Counsel for the Applicant made oral opposition to the points <i>in limine</i>.  I will dispose of the points <i>in limine</i> first before dealing with the merits of the application.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The first Respondent’s argument was that the entire Chamber Application is premised on the fact that the Applicant seeks to argue on the main that he has a valid oral joint venture agreement which oral agreement is illegal by reason of statutory prohibition and cannot found a cause.  He said the Applicant is seeking to approach this Court on Urgent basis considering the fact that incidents being complained of do not warrant being placed in this forum on an urgent basis and he is clearly abusing of court process.  He said the Applicant is well aware that an oral joint venture agreement is unlawful in terms of the provisions of the Agricultural Land Settlement (Permit Terms and Conditions) Regulations 2014 which specifically prohibit the entering into partnerships farm without the approval of the Minister.  He submitted that whatever oral agreement the Applicant had with the Late Dr.  Christopher Francis Mushambi was void.  The Applicant’s so –called oral agreement does not meet the requirements of Agricultural Land Settlement (Permit Terms and Conditions) Regulations 2014 and is in direct breach of such regulations by its very nature.  That illegal oral agreement cannot create urgency let alone give the Applicant a bona fide defence in the rescission because it is an illegality.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The counsel for the Applicant submitted that all the preliminary points taken have nothing to do with urgency for an application of this nature.  He said the first Respondent is inviting the court to revisit merits on the substantive issues.  He said further that on validity or otherwise of oral joint venture agreement this is an issue to be examined as substantive issue and not as point <i>in limine</i>.  This court cannot make a finding on the validity of oral venture agreement.  This point must be argued on the merits of the matter.  The court must decide whether a prima facie case has been established.  The application for rescission cannot be determined on prima facie case.  He referred to the case of <i>Transfrontier Investments (Private) Limited</i> v <i>Bond Crown Investment</i> HH 671/21.  Commenting on the Regulations that have been referred to, he said they do not expressly preclude oral joint venture agreements.  He said the regulations say the Minister must consent in writing but this is not for this court to decide. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">In response the counsel for the first Respondent argued that the counsel for the Applicant has conceded that there should be approval by the Minister in writing, and once it has been found as a fact that there is illegality the provisional order cannot be granted, mainly because even in the application for rescission there are no prospects of success hence the first preliminary point should be upheld.  Reference was made to the case of <i>Hativagone &amp; Another</i> v <i>CAG Farms (Pvt) Ltd &amp; Others</i> SC 42/15.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Let me say on the outset that I am not dealing with the summons case HC 4742/21 nor the court application for rescission of default judgment HC 2086/21.  However, in determining the preliminary points raised by the first Respondent I am forced to refer to documents attached by the Applicant and the first Respondent.  It is trite that in general the court is always entitled to make reference to its own records and proceedings brought before it, and to take note of its contents, even in summary judgment proceedings.  Hence I will refer to all documents filed in the record brought before me as I had occasion to read the whole record before setting this matter down for hearing.   For this contention I refer to the case of <i>Mhungu</i> v <i>Mtindi</i> 1986 (2) ZLR 171 (SC). See also <i>The State</i> v <i>Munyaradzi Mawadze</i> HH-273/20 at page 7 of the cyclostyled judgment were the same authority was cited with approval by CHINAMHORA J.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The first preliminary point raised by the first Respondent is that there is no cause of action in the Applicant’s application by virtue of illegality.  The first Respondent submitted that the entire Urgent Chamber Application is premised on the fact that the Applicant seeks to argue on the main that he has a valid oral joint venture agreement which oral agreement is illegal by reason of statutory prohibition and cannot found a cause.  He said the Applicant is well aware that an oral joint venture agreement is unlawful in terms of the provisions of the Agricultural Land Settlement (Permit Terms and Conditions) Regulations 2014, in particular section 7 (1) (b) which specifically prohibit the entering into partnerships farms without the written approval of the Minister.   It is the first Respondent’s contention that that illegal oral agreement cannot create urgency let alone give the Applicant a bona fide defence in the rescission because it is an illegality.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">I had occasion to read the Applicant’s founding affidavit.  In paragraph 10 the Applicant said he intended to defend the action under HC4742/21 as he was not in willful default. Further, in paragraph 11 he said in part-</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">“</span></span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">Furthermore, I content that I have <i>bona fide</i> defence to the Respondent’s action (in HC 4742/21).  The defence arises from the following facts:</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">11.1<b>. </b>I had an oral joint venture agreement between myself and Respondent’s late uncle, Dr. Christopher Francis Mushambi on the farm known as Lot 1 of Odzi Drift Estate in Mutasa District of Manicaland Province.</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">11.2. The Joint venture was entered sometime in 2021 and was meant to subsist for five years. In terms of the joint venture, I had occupied the farm and brought a lot of furniture into the homestead to commence. As such, Respondent has no basis to evict me especially without affording adequate notice of vacation.”</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">(my emphasis)</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">I again read the founding affidavit of the Applicant in respect of the application for rescission in order to establish if indeed the Applicant had a bona fide defence to HC 4742/21 that would entitle him to a stay of execution pending determination of HC 2086/21.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The Applicant reiterated in paragraphs 10 and 10.1 that he a bona fide defence, and had an oral joint venture agreement between himself and Respondent’s late uncle, Dr. Christopher Francis Mushambi on the farm known as Lot 1 of Odzi Drift Estate in Mutasa of Manicaland Province respectively.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The first Respondent is preliminary point is that the oral joint venture agreement was illegal and cannot found a cause. In determining whether the Applicant had a cause of action and whether he has prospects of success entitling him to the relief of a provisional order suspending the writ of execution, I had occasion to read the provisions of section 7(1) (b) of the Agricultural Land Settlement (Permit Terms and Conditions) Regulations (S.I. No. 53 of 2014. The Regulations read as follows-</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">            <span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">“A permit holder shall not –</span></span></span></span></p> <ol style="list-style-type:lower-alpha"><li style="text-align:justify; margin-left:8px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">cede, assign, hypothecate or otherwise alienate or sublet in whole or in part his or her allocated land or enter into a partnership for the working of the allocated without the consent of the Minister.”</span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">In casu</span></span></span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"> the Applicant does not deny that he entered into an oral joint venture agreement with the Late Dr. Christopher Francis Mushambi without the Minister’s written consent.  Clearly whatever agreement Applicant had with the late Christopher Francis Mushambi without the written consent or otherwise of the Minister was an illegality.  No cause of action can be founded on an illegality. I therefore uphold the first Respondent’s point <i>in limine</i>.  Having found as I did that the oral joint venture agreement was an illegality, I need not labour myself to deal with the other points <i>in limine</i> as these will not change anything.  The Applicant enjoys no prospects of success either in the main matter or the application for rescission of the default judgment.  The general principle governing non-compliance with statutory provisions was concisely spelt out by INNES CJ in <i>Schierhout</i> v <i>Minister of Justice</i> 1926 AD 99 at 109:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">“It is a fundamental principle of our law that a thing done contrary to the direct prohibition of the law is void and of no force or effect…And the disregard of a peremptory provision in a statute is fatal to the validity of the proceedings affected.”</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">See also ZMDC and <i>Kamative Mine</i> v <i>Jambata</i> HH 681/21.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            Another point to illustrate that the Applicant does not enjoy prospects of success in the main or rescission application is that the Applicant said the oral joint venture agreement was entered sometime in 2021 yet the Letters of Administration which the Applicant attached says Christopher Francis Mushambi died on the 15<sup>th</sup> of November 2020, I do not see how the Applicant will reconcile this contradiction since he never challenged it.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">IT IS ORDERED THAT</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <ol><li style="text-align:justify; margin-left:8px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The point <i>in limine</i> that there is no cause of action based on illegality is upheld.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li style="text-align:justify; margin-left:8px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The application is dismissed.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li style="text-align:justify; margin-left:8px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Applicant be and is hereby ordered to pay costs.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i> </i></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"> Dube Manikai &amp; Hwacha</span></span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">, applicant’s legal practitioners</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">John Mugogo Attorneys</span></span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">, first respondent’s legal practitioners.                      </span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">                </span></span></span></p></span></div></div> </div> </div> Tue, 26 Apr 2022 10:27:47 +0000 Sandra Muengwa 12403 at http://www.zimlii.org Beauro Tech Investments Pvt Ltd t/a Trip Trans v Sanyanga and 2 Others (244 of 2022) [2022] ZWHHC 244 (30 March 2022); http://www.zimlii.org/zw/judgment/harare-high-court/2022/244 <span class="field field--name-title field--type-string field--label-hidden">Beauro Tech Investments Pvt Ltd t/a Trip Trans v Sanyanga and 2 Others (244 of 2022) [2022] ZWHHC 244 (30 March 2022);</span> <div class="field field--name-field-flynote field--type-entity-reference field--label-above"> <div class="field__label">Flynote</div> <div class='field__items'> <div class="field__item"><a href="/taxonomy/term/2287" hreflang="x-default">Bar (PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE)</a></div> <div class="field__item"><a href="/taxonomy/term/1619" hreflang="en">Damages</a></div> <div class="field__item"><a href="/taxonomy/term/1628" hreflang="en">Default Judgment</a></div> <div class="field__item"><a href="/taxonomy/term/1657" hreflang="en">Stay of Execution</a></div> <div class="field__item"><a href="/taxonomy/term/2269" hreflang="x-default">Urgent Application</a></div> </div> </div> <span class="field field--name-uid field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden"><span>Sandra Muengwa</span></span> <span class="field field--name-created field--type-created field--label-hidden">Sat, 04/23/2022 - 18:26</span> <div class="field field--name-field-files field--type-file field--label-above"> <div class="field__label">Download</div> <div class='field__items'> <div class="field__item"> <span class="file file--mime-application-vnd-openxmlformats-officedocument-wordprocessingml-document file--x-office-document"> <a href="https://media.zimlii.org/files/judgments/zwhhc/2022/244/2022-zwhhc-244.docx" type="application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document; length=24027">2022-zwhhc-244.docx</a></span> </div> <div class="field__item"> <span class="file file--mime-application-pdf file--application-pdf"> <a href="https://media.zimlii.org/files/judgments/zwhhc/2022/244/2022-zwhhc-244.pdf" type="application/pdf; length=328615">2022-zwhhc-244.pdf</a></span> </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-body field--type-text-with-summary field--label-hidden field__item"><p class="text-align-right"> </p> <p align="right" class="MsoHeader" style="text-align:right"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">1<sdtpr></sdtpr></span></span></p> <p align="right" class="MsoHeader" style="text-align:right"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">HH 244-22</span></span></p> <p align="right" class="MsoHeader" style="text-align:right"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">HC 1986/22</span></span></p> <p> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">BEAURO TECH INVESTMENTS PVT LTD t/a TRIP TRANS</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">versus</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">DADIRAI AGNES SANYANGA</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">and</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">SHERIFF ZIMBABWE N.O</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">and</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">MARSHALL RUKWEZA</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE </span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">FOROMA J</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">HARARE, 29 &amp; 30 March 2022</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-bottom:13px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Urgent Chamber Application</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">T Govere, </span></span></i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">for the applicant</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">S Musapatika,</span></span></i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"> for the 1<sup>st</sup> respondent</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            <span style="font-variant:small-caps">FOROMA</span> J: Applicant in this matter seeks a provincial order the terms of which have been couched as follows:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <ol style="list-style-type:upper-alpha"><li style="text-align:justify; margin-left:8px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Terms of Final Order Sought.  That you show cause to this Honourable Court why a final order should not be made in the following terms:</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><ol><li style="margin-left:56px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">That the provisional order and interim relief granted to the Applicant be and is hereby confirmed.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:56px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The second Respondent be and is hereby ordered to permanently stay execution against Applicant’s property.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:56px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Each party to bear it sown costs of suit.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><ol start="2" style="list-style-type:upper-alpha"><li style="text-align:justify; margin-left:8px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Interim Relief Granted</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Pending the definitive determination of the application for rescission of judgment, the Applicant is granted the following relief.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <ol><li style="margin-left:56px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The execution of the default judgment of this Court made on 16 February 2022 under Case No. HC 994/20 per <span style="font-variant:small-caps">Katiyo</span> J be and is hereby temporarily stayed pending the determination of application for rescission of default judgment filed under Case No. HC 1956/22.  </span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:56px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">In the event that the second Respondent has removed the Applicant’s movable property Zhong Tong Bus Ref No. ASU 1828 AND Globe trotter Volvo White horse by the date and time of this Order the second Respondent be and is hereby ordered to restore possession of same to the Applicant.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:56px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Each party to bear its costs of suit</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The factual background giving raise to the urgent chamber application is summarized below.  First Respondent is a widow whose husband died in a reversing accident involving applicant’s bus then driven by third Respondent on 4 June 2019 along Mutare Road opposite Ruwa Service Station in Ruwa.  Third Respondent was convicted of the crime of culpable homicide by the Magistrate’s Court and that following upon third Respondent’s conviction aforesaid, first Respondent sued Applicant and third Respondent for damages for inter alia loss of support arising from the unlawful killing of the first Respondent’s husband per HC 994/20.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">When first Respondent served Applicant and third Respondent with the summons through second Respondent’s deputy Applicant failed to enter appearance to defend on time with the result that the appearance to defend which applicant filed was invalid by reason of it having been entered against an operative automatic bar without the consent to upliftment of the bar by the first Respondent (then Plaintiff) or an order uplifting the bar by the court.  The invalid appearance to defend purports that the summons was served on the Applicant and third Respondent on 20 February 2020 when in reality and actual fact it had been served on 14 February 2020.  The Applicant was warned by Danziger and Partners (first Respondent’s Legal Practitioners) that the appearance to defend had been filed when the defendants were already automatically barred and that first Respondent was proceeding to apply for default judgment.  The said warning was conveyed by copy of letter to the Registrar of this court dated 9 March 2020.  Applicant’s legal practitioners Rubaya and Chatambudza legal practitioners received the letter to third Respondent on 11 March 2020 but did not give the letter any attention or acknowledgement of receipt with the result that the first respondent proceeded to apply for a default judgment as had been intimated in the said letter.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">For reasons not germane to this judgment the default judgment was only granted on 16 February 2022 where upon the first Respondent proceeded to execute the judgment which execution triggered the current urgent chamber application for a stay of execution by the Applicant.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Applicant’s contention is that on being served with summons by first Respondent in HC 994/20 it engaged the services of Rubaya and Chatambudza Legal Practitioners to defend the same. Applicant indicates in its founding affidavit in the application for rescission of judgment per HC 1956/22 that it engaged Rubaya and Chatambudza Legal Practitioners to defend the summons per HC 994/20 on the 15<sup>th</sup> of February 2020.  It is not clear though and no explanation has been proferred as to how it is that Messrs Rubaya and Chatambudza erroneously indicated in the appearance to defend that the summons was served on Applicants on 20 February 2020.  Be that as it may Mr Chikotora the legal practitioner who was seized with Applicant’s matter per HC 994/20 despite filing an affidavit in which he accepts blame for failing to timeously file the appearance to defend has not taken the court into his confidence by explaining how the discrepancy in the date of service of summons arose.  The court is therefore unable to determine as to who between Applicant and its erstwhile legal practitioners is to blame for the discrepancy in dates of service of summons.  Although an explanation for the error as to date of service of summons on respondent is a relevant consideration in the determination of the application for rescission of judgment it is not that significant in the determination of the application <i>in casu</i>.  Had Messrs Rubaya and Chatambudza correctly responded to letter dated 11 March 2020 that issue would have ceased to matter.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">At the hearing of this matter first Respondent took as a point <i>in limine</i> that the application was not urgent and that any urgency would be self-created as the applicant cannot escape blame for not following up its instructions to its legal practitioners at all for a whole 2 years after engaging them to handle its defence- See <i>Kuvarega</i> v <i>Registra General and Anor</i> 1998(1) ZLR 188 at 193. After hearing argument by both counsels on the issue, I was satisfied that the matter was urgent and directed that parties present argument on the merits.  Unfortunately, the applicant has also not taken the court into its confidence by explaining the failure to communicate with its lawyers from the date it engaged them to defend the summons until more than 2 years later when it was served with a notice of removal (in execution). The applicant has therefore fallen foul of the duty to make<i> </i>full disclosure which is an essential requirement parties are required to observe in urgent chamber applications. I find it strange and unbelievable that Mr Chikotora claims that his secretary did not bring to his attention Danziger and Partners letter to the Registrar dated 11 March 2020 and copied to his firm yet the letter was received at his firm.  It is standard practice at all law firms that all incoming mail served at a legal firm is stamped by the receptionist and immediately distributed through pigeon holes designated for the respective legal practitioners and departments of the firm for example, conveyancing, accounts etc.  The affidavit of Florence Chatambudza does not assist at all as she too does not explain what she did with the letter from Danziger and Partners aforesaid after she received and stamped it.  Covid 19 surely could not have prevented her distribute mail received at the law firm yet the  firm was open for business as confirmed by her receiving the letter in question.   In the absence of such explanation I find it irresistable to infer gross negligence in the way Mr Chikotora handled applicant’s matter.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The failure by both the applicant and its erstwhile legal practitioners (Chikotora) to clearly explain what is an apparent wilful default which led to Applicant being barred and consequent default judgment the execution of which has jolted applicant into bringing this application is inexcusable. Although I am not required to determine the applicant’s application for recession of judgment in my consideration of this application the view, I take of Applicant’s prospects of success in the application for rescission of judgment is that they are dim.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The first Respondent argued that the law binds a litigant to his choice of counsel to represent it in matters of involving litigation thus applicant is bound by its legal practitioners’ negligence or ineptitude.  This submission though correct, is not an immutable rule as there will always be occasions when the court will not countenance a litigant being visited with the consequences of a negligent or inept legal counsel. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">In considering whether the applicant will suffer irreparable harm I considered that if such harm were to be a result of a poor purchase price being realized at the auction of Applicant’s property then there is a remedy readily available to applicant infact more than one.  Applicant can negotiate reasonable terms for the payment of the judgment debt on a without prejudice basis pending determination of the application for recession of judgment failing which it could secure a loan to discharge the judgment debt and that way avoid the risk of the property going under the hammer.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The Applicant argued that if the first respondent got the judgment debt paid pending the determination of the application for rescission of judgment, she might not be able to pay back in the event the applicant succeeds in having the default judgment rescinded.  This can easily be overcome by negotiating that the judgment debt be paid into the first respondent’s legal practitioners’ trust account to be held pending determination of the application for rescission of judgment. There is yet another avenue available to avoid the alleged irreparable loss - Applicant can rope in <i>Rubaya and Chatambudza Legal Practitioners</i> to assist with raising the capital judgment debt as on the face of it their firm is liable to Applicant for negligently handling applicant’s case which negligence has caused applicant loss (judgment debt).  Should Rubaya and Chatambudza refuse to co-operate in order to prevent sale in execution of Applicant’s assets Applicant can always sue them for damages as in the court’s view Applicant’s prospects in that action are more than probable on the facts disclosed in this application.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">It is clear therefore that on the merit’s applicant has not made out a case on the aspect of risk of an irreparable loss proof of which is an essential element for the court to grant a stay of execution by way of interim relief.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">In the circumstances the application fails and it is dismissed with costs.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"> </span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Govere Law Chambers,</span></span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"> applicant’s legal practitioners</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Danziger and Partners,</span></span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"> first respondent’s legal practitioners.</span></span></span></span></span></p> </div> <div class="views-element-container"><div class="view view-eva view-download-conditional view-id-download_conditional view-display-id-entity_view_1 js-view-dom-id-81dfbaf5182df12197db75801e6a6a958efbbaf3e776fa38a2032eb48e19ea50"> <div><div class="views-field views-field-views-conditional-field"><span class="field-content"><p class="text-align-right"> </p> <p align="right" class="MsoHeader" style="text-align:right"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">1<sdtpr></sdtpr></span></span></p> <p align="right" class="MsoHeader" style="text-align:right"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">HH 244-22</span></span></p> <p align="right" class="MsoHeader" style="text-align:right"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">HC 1986/22</span></span></p> <p> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">BEAURO TECH INVESTMENTS PVT LTD t/a TRIP TRANS</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">versus</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">DADIRAI AGNES SANYANGA</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">and</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">SHERIFF ZIMBABWE N.O</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">and</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">MARSHALL RUKWEZA</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE </span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">FOROMA J</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">HARARE, 29 &amp; 30 March 2022</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-bottom:13px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Urgent Chamber Application</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">T Govere, </span></span></i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">for the applicant</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">S Musapatika,</span></span></i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"> for the 1<sup>st</sup> respondent</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            <span style="font-variant:small-caps">FOROMA</span> J: Applicant in this matter seeks a provincial order the terms of which have been couched as follows:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <ol style="list-style-type:upper-alpha"><li style="text-align:justify; margin-left:8px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Terms of Final Order Sought.  That you show cause to this Honourable Court why a final order should not be made in the following terms:</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><ol><li style="margin-left:56px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">That the provisional order and interim relief granted to the Applicant be and is hereby confirmed.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:56px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The second Respondent be and is hereby ordered to permanently stay execution against Applicant’s property.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:56px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Each party to bear it sown costs of suit.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><ol start="2" style="list-style-type:upper-alpha"><li style="text-align:justify; margin-left:8px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Interim Relief Granted</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Pending the definitive determination of the application for rescission of judgment, the Applicant is granted the following relief.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <ol><li style="margin-left:56px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The execution of the default judgment of this Court made on 16 February 2022 under Case No. HC 994/20 per <span style="font-variant:small-caps">Katiyo</span> J be and is hereby temporarily stayed pending the determination of application for rescission of default judgment filed under Case No. HC 1956/22.  </span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:56px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">In the event that the second Respondent has removed the Applicant’s movable property Zhong Tong Bus Ref No. ASU 1828 AND Globe trotter Volvo White horse by the date and time of this Order the second Respondent be and is hereby ordered to restore possession of same to the Applicant.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:56px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Each party to bear its costs of suit</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The factual background giving raise to the urgent chamber application is summarized below.  First Respondent is a widow whose husband died in a reversing accident involving applicant’s bus then driven by third Respondent on 4 June 2019 along Mutare Road opposite Ruwa Service Station in Ruwa.  Third Respondent was convicted of the crime of culpable homicide by the Magistrate’s Court and that following upon third Respondent’s conviction aforesaid, first Respondent sued Applicant and third Respondent for damages for inter alia loss of support arising from the unlawful killing of the first Respondent’s husband per HC 994/20.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">When first Respondent served Applicant and third Respondent with the summons through second Respondent’s deputy Applicant failed to enter appearance to defend on time with the result that the appearance to defend which applicant filed was invalid by reason of it having been entered against an operative automatic bar without the consent to upliftment of the bar by the first Respondent (then Plaintiff) or an order uplifting the bar by the court.  The invalid appearance to defend purports that the summons was served on the Applicant and third Respondent on 20 February 2020 when in reality and actual fact it had been served on 14 February 2020.  The Applicant was warned by Danziger and Partners (first Respondent’s Legal Practitioners) that the appearance to defend had been filed when the defendants were already automatically barred and that first Respondent was proceeding to apply for default judgment.  The said warning was conveyed by copy of letter to the Registrar of this court dated 9 March 2020.  Applicant’s legal practitioners Rubaya and Chatambudza legal practitioners received the letter to third Respondent on 11 March 2020 but did not give the letter any attention or acknowledgement of receipt with the result that the first respondent proceeded to apply for a default judgment as had been intimated in the said letter.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">For reasons not germane to this judgment the default judgment was only granted on 16 February 2022 where upon the first Respondent proceeded to execute the judgment which execution triggered the current urgent chamber application for a stay of execution by the Applicant.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Applicant’s contention is that on being served with summons by first Respondent in HC 994/20 it engaged the services of Rubaya and Chatambudza Legal Practitioners to defend the same. Applicant indicates in its founding affidavit in the application for rescission of judgment per HC 1956/22 that it engaged Rubaya and Chatambudza Legal Practitioners to defend the summons per HC 994/20 on the 15<sup>th</sup> of February 2020.  It is not clear though and no explanation has been proferred as to how it is that Messrs Rubaya and Chatambudza erroneously indicated in the appearance to defend that the summons was served on Applicants on 20 February 2020.  Be that as it may Mr Chikotora the legal practitioner who was seized with Applicant’s matter per HC 994/20 despite filing an affidavit in which he accepts blame for failing to timeously file the appearance to defend has not taken the court into his confidence by explaining how the discrepancy in the date of service of summons arose.  The court is therefore unable to determine as to who between Applicant and its erstwhile legal practitioners is to blame for the discrepancy in dates of service of summons.  Although an explanation for the error as to date of service of summons on respondent is a relevant consideration in the determination of the application for rescission of judgment it is not that significant in the determination of the application <i>in casu</i>.  Had Messrs Rubaya and Chatambudza correctly responded to letter dated 11 March 2020 that issue would have ceased to matter.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">At the hearing of this matter first Respondent took as a point <i>in limine</i> that the application was not urgent and that any urgency would be self-created as the applicant cannot escape blame for not following up its instructions to its legal practitioners at all for a whole 2 years after engaging them to handle its defence- See <i>Kuvarega</i> v <i>Registra General and Anor</i> 1998(1) ZLR 188 at 193. After hearing argument by both counsels on the issue, I was satisfied that the matter was urgent and directed that parties present argument on the merits.  Unfortunately, the applicant has also not taken the court into its confidence by explaining the failure to communicate with its lawyers from the date it engaged them to defend the summons until more than 2 years later when it was served with a notice of removal (in execution). The applicant has therefore fallen foul of the duty to make<i> </i>full disclosure which is an essential requirement parties are required to observe in urgent chamber applications. I find it strange and unbelievable that Mr Chikotora claims that his secretary did not bring to his attention Danziger and Partners letter to the Registrar dated 11 March 2020 and copied to his firm yet the letter was received at his firm.  It is standard practice at all law firms that all incoming mail served at a legal firm is stamped by the receptionist and immediately distributed through pigeon holes designated for the respective legal practitioners and departments of the firm for example, conveyancing, accounts etc.  The affidavit of Florence Chatambudza does not assist at all as she too does not explain what she did with the letter from Danziger and Partners aforesaid after she received and stamped it.  Covid 19 surely could not have prevented her distribute mail received at the law firm yet the  firm was open for business as confirmed by her receiving the letter in question.   In the absence of such explanation I find it irresistable to infer gross negligence in the way Mr Chikotora handled applicant’s matter.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The failure by both the applicant and its erstwhile legal practitioners (Chikotora) to clearly explain what is an apparent wilful default which led to Applicant being barred and consequent default judgment the execution of which has jolted applicant into bringing this application is inexcusable. Although I am not required to determine the applicant’s application for recession of judgment in my consideration of this application the view, I take of Applicant’s prospects of success in the application for rescission of judgment is that they are dim.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The first Respondent argued that the law binds a litigant to his choice of counsel to represent it in matters of involving litigation thus applicant is bound by its legal practitioners’ negligence or ineptitude.  This submission though correct, is not an immutable rule as there will always be occasions when the court will not countenance a litigant being visited with the consequences of a negligent or inept legal counsel. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">In considering whether the applicant will suffer irreparable harm I considered that if such harm were to be a result of a poor purchase price being realized at the auction of Applicant’s property then there is a remedy readily available to applicant infact more than one.  Applicant can negotiate reasonable terms for the payment of the judgment debt on a without prejudice basis pending determination of the application for recession of judgment failing which it could secure a loan to discharge the judgment debt and that way avoid the risk of the property going under the hammer.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The Applicant argued that if the first respondent got the judgment debt paid pending the determination of the application for rescission of judgment, she might not be able to pay back in the event the applicant succeeds in having the default judgment rescinded.  This can easily be overcome by negotiating that the judgment debt be paid into the first respondent’s legal practitioners’ trust account to be held pending determination of the application for rescission of judgment. There is yet another avenue available to avoid the alleged irreparable loss - Applicant can rope in <i>Rubaya and Chatambudza Legal Practitioners</i> to assist with raising the capital judgment debt as on the face of it their firm is liable to Applicant for negligently handling applicant’s case which negligence has caused applicant loss (judgment debt).  Should Rubaya and Chatambudza refuse to co-operate in order to prevent sale in execution of Applicant’s assets Applicant can always sue them for damages as in the court’s view Applicant’s prospects in that action are more than probable on the facts disclosed in this application.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">It is clear therefore that on the merit’s applicant has not made out a case on the aspect of risk of an irreparable loss proof of which is an essential element for the court to grant a stay of execution by way of interim relief.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">In the circumstances the application fails and it is dismissed with costs.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"> </span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Govere Law Chambers,</span></span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"> applicant’s legal practitioners</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Danziger and Partners,</span></span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"> first respondent’s legal practitioners.</span></span></span></span></span></p></span></div></div> </div> </div> Sat, 23 Apr 2022 18:26:42 +0000 Sandra Muengwa 12397 at http://www.zimlii.org Chiyangwa v Rusere (39 of 2022) [2022] ZWHHC 39 (14 January 2022); http://www.zimlii.org/zw/judgment/harare-high-court/2022/39 <span class="field field--name-title field--type-string field--label-hidden">Chiyangwa v Rusere (39 of 2022) [2022] ZWHHC 39 (14 January 2022);</span> <div class="field field--name-field-flynote field--type-entity-reference field--label-above"> <div class="field__label">Flynote</div> <div class='field__items'> <div class="field__item"><a href="/taxonomy/term/1657" hreflang="en">Stay of Execution</a></div> <div class="field__item"><a href="/taxonomy/term/2248" hreflang="x-default">Rescission of judgment</a></div> <div class="field__item"><a href="/taxonomy/term/2269" hreflang="x-default">Urgent Application</a></div> <div class="field__item"><a href="/taxonomy/term/2271" hreflang="x-default">what constitutes urgency (Urgent application)</a></div> </div> </div> <span class="field field--name-uid field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden"><span>Sandra Muengwa</span></span> <span class="field field--name-created field--type-created field--label-hidden">Mon, 01/24/2022 - 09:23</span> <div class="field field--name-field-files field--type-file field--label-above"> <div class="field__label">Download</div> <div class='field__items'> <div class="field__item"> <span class="file file--mime-application-vnd-openxmlformats-officedocument-wordprocessingml-document file--x-office-document"> <a href="https://media.zimlii.org/files/judgments/zwhhc/2022/39/2022-zwhhc-39.docx" type="application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document; length=29173">2022-zwhhc-39.docx</a></span> </div> <div class="field__item"> <span class="file file--mime-application-pdf file--application-pdf"> <a href="https://media.zimlii.org/files/judgments/zwhhc/2022/39/2022-zwhhc-39.pdf" type="application/pdf; length=445588">2022-zwhhc-39.pdf</a></span> </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-body field--type-text-with-summary field--label-hidden field__item"><p align="right" class="MsoHeader" style="text-align:right"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">HH 39-22</span></span></p> <p align="right" class="MsoHeader" style="text-align:right"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">HC 7099/21</span></span></p> <p class="text-align-right"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:11.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,sans-serif">REF CASE NO. HC 7097/21</span></span></span></p> <p> </p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">PHILLIP CHIYANGWA</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">and</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">PAMELA RUSERE</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p> </p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">MANYANGADZE J</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">HARARE, 20 December 2021 and 14 January 2022</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p> </p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Urgent Chamber Application</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Mr M Ndlovu</span></span></span></i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">, for the applicant</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Mr K Siyeba</span></span></span></i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">, for the respondent</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            MANYANGADZE J:   This is an urgent chamber application for stay of execution pending determination of a court application for rescission of judgment.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            The application arises out of a judgment handed down by this court on 2 November 2021, under Case No. CIV ‘A’ 77/21.  In that case, the court allowed an appeal by the respondent against a dismissal of her application for rescission of a default judgment granted in the Magistrates’ Court under Case No. M577/20.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            The facts forming the background to the matter are largely, if not wholly common cause.  A brief outline thereof will help put the matter into clearer perspective.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            The applicant and the respondent have two (2) minor children aged 14 and 8.  The applicant was ordered by the Magistrates’ Court under Case No. M577/20 to pay maintenance for the said minor children in the sum of ZW$40 000.00 per month.  In addition he was ordered to pay school fees per term directly to the school the children were attending in South Africa.  This amounted to R49 000.00.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            The applicant appealed this decision to this court.  In a judgment handed down on 10 December 2020, the court, per TSANGA J and CHINAMHORA J, dismissed the appeal in respect of the ZW$40 000,00 monthly maintenance.  However, the appeal was partially allowed in respect of the school fees component.  The applicant was ordered to pay R$49 172.83 into the respondent’s local bank account at the prevailing auction rate.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            After a few months, the applicant applied for a downward variation of the maintenance ordered in that judgment.  In a default judgment handed down on 12 April 2021, under case No. M577/20, the Magistrates’ Court varied the maintenance from ZW$40 000.00 down to ZW$8 000.00.  The court ordered that the applicant pays school fees per term upon presentation of school invoices by the respondent.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            This judgment was granted in default of appearance by the respondent.  She applied for rescission of the default judgment.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            On 20 May 2021, the Magistrates’ Court dismissed the application for rescission of the default judgment.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            Aggrieved by this decision, the respondent noted an appeal with this court.  In a judgment handed down on 2 November 2021, per KWENDA J, MUCHAWA J and CHILIMBE J, the following order was granted:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            “IT IS ORDERED THAT:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <ol><li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The appeal is allowed.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The judgment of the court <i>a quo</i> is set aside and substituted with the following:</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:72px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">“The application for downward variation of the maintenance order in Case No. M577/20 be and is hereby dismissed.”</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <ol start="3"><li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The respondent shall pay the costs of this appeal on the ordinary scale.”</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The applicant and his legal practitioner did not attend the hearing where this order was granted.  The applicant learnt of this judgment from his legal practitioners on 3 December 2021.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">On 10 December 2021, the applicant filed an application for rescission of the judgment of 2 November 2021 under Case No. HC 7097/21.  The gravamen of this application is that that judgment was granted in error.  He therefore seeks to have the judgment rescinded on the basis of a patent error, as provided for in r 29(1)(b) of the High Court rules, 2021.  The patent error alleged by the applicant is that the court, after allowing the appeal against dismissal of the application for rescission of a default judgment and setting aside the default judgment, should not have gone on to dismiss the application for downwards variation of maintenance.  That should have been dealt with on the merits in the Magistrates’ Court.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">On the same date, i.e. 10 December 2021, the applicant filed the instant application.  He seeks stay of execution of the judgment under Case No. CIV ‘A’ 77/21, pending the determination of the application for rescission of the same under case No. 7097/21.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Before considering the merits of the application, I have to deal with points <i>in limine</i> raised by the respondent.  The respondent raised 8 points <i>in limine</i>.  These are that:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <ol><li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The application is improperly before the court.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The application was filed out of time.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The applicant is not in Form 23.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The application contains a defective draft order.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The applicant was not opposed to the relief being sought.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The application is based on an improper certificate of urgency.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The relief sought is incompetent.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The matter is not urgent.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[1]        <b><u>Application Improperly Before the Court</u></b></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            This preliminary point is based on a notice to the public issued by the Judicial Service Commission (JSC), advising the public of the temporary closure of superior courts from 9 December to 12 December 2021.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            The respondent avers that the application for rescission of judgment on which the application for stay of execution is premised, was filed on 10 December 2021.  That date falls within the period covered by the said JSC notice.  The notice says the registry departments of the courts will be open for all urgent matters.  The respondent contends that the application for rescission, being an ordinary court application, was improperly filed within the period of that notice, and is therefore fatally defective.   Consequently, the application for stay of execution is equally fatally defective based as it is on the application for rescission.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            In countering this submission, the applicant averred that the JSC notice does not have the same status as a Practice Direction by the Chief Justice or a statutory instrument.  It is an administrative measure that does not take away the rights of litigants.  Thus, the filing of the application for rescission did not violate a gazetted statutory instrument or the Chief Justice’s Practice Direction.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            Indeed, a look at the JSC notice shows that it was an administrative measure necessitated by confirmation of COVID-19 cases among members of staff.  Its purpose was to allow for fumigation and disinfection of the court premises.  It was issued by the Head of Corporate Service on behalf of the JSC.  Through the notice, the Head of Corporate Service is discharging her administrative mandate of communicating with the public and various stakeholders on behalf of the JSC.  The notice states, <i>inter alia</i>:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">“</span></span><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-ZW">The temporary closure will allow for fumigation, disinfection and deep cleaning of the premises.  We kindly ask our valued stakeholders and members of the public to bear with us as we contain the further spreading of the deadly virus.”</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            Such a notice cannot be viewed as a legal instrument that carries with it the force of law.  It cannot invalidate an application duly issued by the Registrar such as the one for rescission of judgment that was filed on 10 December 2021.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            This preliminary point is devoid of merit and cannot be upheld.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[2]        <b><u>The Application was filed out of time</u></b></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            It is not clear why this point has been raised.  What is before the court is an interlocutory application for stay of execution.  It has not been argued that this particular application is out of time.  The point relates to the main application.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            Be that as it may, the sequence of events outlined in the applicant’s founding affidavit, which has not been disputed, does not show that the application for rescission was filed out of time.  The applicant’s legal practitioners became aware of the default judgment on 1 December 2021.  The application was filed on 10 December 2021, seven (7) days later.  Rule 29(2) of the High Court Rules, 2021 requires that the application for rescission be made within one (1) month <u>after becoming aware of</u> the existence of the order or judgment.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            It cannot, in the circumstances, be said that the said application was out of time.  The point <i>in limine</i> is misplaced.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[3]        <b><u>Use of Form 23</u></b></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            Again the point relates to the pending application for rescission.  What is stated in the respondent’s notice of opposition is somewhat different from what was argued on her behalf on this point.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            During oral argument, the respondent’s counsel does not take issue with the form of the application <i>per se</i>, that is, whether or not it complies with Form 23.  He takes issue with the fact that the application does not give notice that the application will be heard by a panel of three Judges.  He argues that since the order the applicant seeks to rescind was granted by three judges, the applicant must give notice that the rescission by the applicant will be heard by a panel of three judges.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            In response, the applicant questions the relevance of this preliminary point, and rightly so.  </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            This is a set down issue, which is not for the parties to deal with.  The parties, after filing their papers, and paying the necessary costs relating to set down, simply await the notice of setdown, in which they will be advised which judge(s) will hear their matter.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            The respondent has not indicated the basis on which such an issue should be incorporated in a notice of application, and how it relates to Form 23.  The preliminary point lacks merit and should not be upheld.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[4]        <b><u>Defective Draft Order</u></b></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            The respondent avers that the draft order is in the form of a declaratory relief, in an application for stay of execution.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            There indeed appears to be a defect in the applicant’s papers.  Terms of the final order sought include declaring CIV ‘A’ 77/21 null and void.  This court cannot do that, as it is not seized with the application for rescission.  It is in that application that the status of the order in CIV ‘A’ 77/21 will be argued.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            The applicant appears to concede this defect.  He, however, points out that the interim relief is not defective.  It is a stay of execution.  A stay of executing, by its very nature, is interim.  It preserves the <i>status quo</i> pending determination of the parties’ substantive rights in the main matter.  In the instant case, these rights will be determined in the pending application under Case No. 9097/21.  So, stay of execution pending determination of Case No. 9097/21 is a proper relief.  For this reason, the point <i>in limine</i> must fail.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[5]        <b><u>Applicant was not Opposed to the Relief Sought</u></b></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">This point need not detain the court.  It reflects a misunderstanding of the applicant’s papers.  A perusal of the founding affidavit shows that the applicant was not opposed to the setting aside of the default judgment granted by the Magistrates’ court.  This would then pave the way for the hearing, on the merits, of the application for downward variation of the maintenance, in the Magistrates’ Court.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The respondent seems to be saying her prayer for the dismissal of the application for downward variation of maintenance was not opposed by the applicant.  This is incorrect.  The reason for the filing of the application for rescission in Case No. 9097/21 and the instant application, is the applicant’s opposition to the relief that was granted.  His contention is that the granting of this relief was not intended by the court and constitutes a patent error.  </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Again, the point <i>in limine</i> fails.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[6]        <b><u>The Application is based on an improper certificate of urgency</u></b></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The applicant avers that the certificate of urgency does not show why the legal practitioner concerned avers that the matter is urgent.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Again it is not clear why the respondent is making such an averment. The certificate of urgency contains 12 paragraphs, in which the legal practitioner is showing why the applicant filed a court application for rescission and an urgent application for stay. He is expressing his opinion why he considers the matter to be urgent, as contended by the applicant in response to this point.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The necessary details and evidence are contained in the applicant’s founding affidavit. One cannot expect such evidentiary details in a certificate of urgency.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            The respondent makes a bald and unsubstantiated averment that the certificate of urgency shows <i>mala fides</i> on the part of the legal practitioner.  The respondent has not pointed out any impropriety in the certificate of urgency. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Again, the point <i>in limine</i> lacks merit and cannot be upheld.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[7]         <b><u>The matter is not urgent</u></b></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            The submissions made under this item are brief. In the main, the respondent avers that the applicant submitted that he was not opposed to the relief being sought.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">This aspect has already been dealt with under point <i>in limine</i> number 5. The remarks made therein apply with equal force here.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            As already indicated, the undisputed facts are that the applicant was advised of the appeal outcome by his legal practitioners on 3 December 2021. He then set about consulting them on the issue.  This culminated in the two applications filed on 10 December 2021, being the court application for rescission of judgment and urgent chamber application for stay of execution pending the outcome of the application for rescission.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            Save for the flawed perception that the relief sought by respondent was not opposed by the applicant, the aspect of urgency is not one the respondent focused on. The respondent, it appears placed more emphasis on the other points <i>in limine</i>,which had a bearing more on the pending main application than the instant one.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            In light of that, the preliminary point cannot be upheld.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">I must point out that this is a matter where more time was spent on the preliminary points than the substantive application. This is undesirable, especially having regard to the fact that this was an interlocutory application, and most of the preliminary points raised seek to impugn the validity of the main application.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">I have dealt with 7 preliminary points.  The 8<sup>th</sup> preliminary point raises an aspect already dealt with in the other preliminary points, such as the number of judges who should deal with the application for rescission.  The other aspect relates more to the merits of the main application, being the question of whether or not the judgment sought to be rescinded was made in error.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The raising of preliminary points for the sake of it is frowned upon by the courts.  Most, if not all of the points raised in this matter had no merit and did not carry with them the potential to dispose of the matter.  As already indicated, argument on the preliminary points chewed up a huge chunk of the time allocated for the hearing of the case.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Legal practitioners ought to carefully reflect on the effect of points <i>in limine</i> they contemplate raising.  Instead of expediting the disposition of matters, they unduly prolong litigation. See <i>Telecel Zimbabwe (Pvt) Ltd</i> v <i>Postal and Telecommunications Regulatory Authority of Zimbabwe &amp; Others</i> HH 446/15.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            I now turn to the merits.  What is considered in an application for stay of execution has been set out in a number of cases. First and foremost, it must be noted that the execution of a judgment is a process of the court, and the court has an inherent power to manage that process. The court exercises a discretion whether or not to grant the relief of a stay of execution. This point was highlighted in the case of <i>Desmond Humbe</i> v <i>Muchina &amp; 4 Others</i> SC 81/21. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">Mathonsi JA</span> stated;</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-ZW">“The execution of a judgment is a process of the court. The court therefore retains an inherent power to manage that process having regard to the applicable rules of procedure. What is required for a litigant to persuade the court to exercise its discretion in favour of granting a stay in the execution of the court’s judgment has been stated in a number of cases.”</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The learned judge of appeal then went on to refer to the case of <i>Mupini</i> v <i>Makoni</i>  1993 (1) ZLR 80 (S) where it was stated that the court has a wide discretion in deciding whether or not to stay execution and in doing so will consider whether real and substantial justice so demands. In <i>Vengai Rushwaya</i> v <i>Nelson Bvungo</i> <i>&amp; Another</i> HMA 19/17 <span style="font-variant:small-caps">Mafusire J</span> noted that an application for stay of execution is a species of an interdict. As such an applicant must <i>inter alia</i> show an apprehension of an irreparable harm, a balance of convenience favouring the granting of the interdict and the absence of any other satisfactory remedy.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The learned judge, however, went on to show that a stay of execution has a wider discretion where the basis for granting relief is real and substantial justice. He stated, on p 5 of the cyclostyled judgment;</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">“O</span></span><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-ZW">n the other hand, in a stay of execution the requirement is simply r<b><u>eal and substantial justice</u></b>, see <i>Cohen v Cohen</i> 1979 (3) SA 420 (R) ; <i>Chibanda</i> v <i>King</i> 1983 (1) ZLR 116 (S), <i>Mupini </i>v <i>Makoni</i> 1993 (1) ZLR 80 (S) and <i>Muchapondwa</i> v <i>Manake &amp; Ors</i> 2006 (1) ZLR 196 (H). The premise on which a court may grant a stay of execution pending the determination of the main matter or an appeal is the inherent power reposed in it to control its own process. In <i>Cohen’s case</i> above GOLDIN J said:</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-ZW">“Execution is a process of the court and the court has an inherent power to control its own process subject to the Rules of court. Circumstances can arise where a stay of execution as sought here should be granted <b><u>on the basis</u></b> <b><u>of real and substantial justice</u></b>. Thus, where injustice would otherwise be caused, the court has the power and must generally speaking, grant relief.” (my emphasis)</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Turning to the instant case, the gravamen of the applicant’s averment is that the court made a patent error when it dismissed applicant’s application for downward variation of maintenance. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The applicant fears that the respondent will take steps to enforce or execute the said judgment, whilst an application for its rescission is pending. The enforcement of maintenance orders, quite often involves the criminal justice process. Non-compliance with a maintenance order is a criminal offence, which places the respondent at the risk of an arrest and prosecution, with the usual consequences that follow such a process. This is intended to compel the respondent to comply with the maintenance order. It appears it is in this context that the applicant avers in his founding affidavit that the order whose rescission he seeks puts his liberty at stake.</span></span></span>  </span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">In her notice of opposition, the respondent does not clearly and convincingly address the issue of the alleged patent error, so as to assist the court on the important question of whether or not the pending application for rescission carries with it prospects of success.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The respondent, in para 15 of her opposing affidavit, makes the broad and general averment that the High Court is empowered to grant any order which it deems appropriate when sitting as an appellate court. In view of this, there is no patent error in the appeal decision in question. This, it appears, is the gist of the averments made in most paragraphs of the opposing affidavit. The averments are to the effect that, due to the wide ranging appeal powers the High Court enjoys, it did not make any patent error warranting rescission. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">It seems the respondent fundamentally missed the point in the applicant’s averments, as expressed in paragraph 6 of the founding affidavit. In these averments, the applicant points out the issue that was before the court. This was the dismissal of the respondent’s application for rescission of the default judgment that varied her maintenance downwards. This, it appears was the gravamen of her appeal.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The question that then arises is whether or not that court, sitting in its appellate capacity, made a patent error when it went on to dismiss the applicant’s application for downward variation of maintenance. That is an issue the court that will deal with the pending application for rescission of judgment will be seized with.  Should that court agree with the applicant that there was indeed a patent error, within the scope of rule 29 (1) (b) of the High Court Rules, 2021, it will rescind the judgment concerned. The implication is that the parties will revert to the <i>status</i> <i>quo ante</i> i.e as at the date when the downward variation was granted. The parties will then ventilate the merits of the variation in the Magistrates’ Court. The respondent is likely to be faced with the daunting task of reimbursing any payments made in terms of the rescinded order. If the respondent’s opposition to the application for rescission is upheld, and the application is dismissed, the maintenance order will stand as per the appeal judgment in question. The applicant can then be made to pay for any shortfalls resulting from the order of stay of execution.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">In the circumstances, it is my considered view that it is appropriate and in accordance with real and substantial justice that execution of the judgment be stayed until the question of whether or not it was granted in error is resolved.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The court is mindful of the importance and sensitivity of the matter, involving as it does the welfare and interests of minor children. However, the court is not seized with an inquiry into what constitutes appropriate maintenance for the children. It is seized with an interlocutory application for stay of execution, whose reasons have already been adverted to. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"> It therefore has to look at the legal principles applicable in the resolution of such an application.  The parties’ substantive rights will be determined in the main matter, on which the interlocutory application is premised.  It is hoped that the setting down and disposition of that matter will be expedited.  Execution may then be pursued after the question of the legal status of the judgment is dealt with and clarified.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            In the result, it is ordered that:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <ol><li style="text-align:justify; margin-left:8px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The application be and is hereby granted.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li style="text-align:justify; margin-left:8px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Execution of the order issued in Case No. CIV ‘A’ 77/2021 be and is hereby stayed pending determination of the application for rescission filed under Case No. 9097/21.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li style="text-align:justify; margin-left:8px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Each party bears its own costs.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px; margin-left:48px"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Mutamangira &amp; Associates</span></span></i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">, applicant’s legal practitioners</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Bherebhende Law Chambers.,</span></span></span></i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"> respondent’s legal practitioners</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"> </p> </div> <div class="views-element-container"><div class="view view-eva view-download-conditional view-id-download_conditional view-display-id-entity_view_1 js-view-dom-id-df15ae72a582dea3121d878b7823d5740d2f84fbe486580d266aa8eb308215b7"> <div><div class="views-field views-field-views-conditional-field"><span class="field-content"><p align="right" class="MsoHeader" style="text-align:right"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">HH 39-22</span></span></p> <p align="right" class="MsoHeader" style="text-align:right"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">HC 7099/21</span></span></p> <p class="text-align-right"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:11.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,sans-serif">REF CASE NO. HC 7097/21</span></span></span></p> <p> </p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">PHILLIP CHIYANGWA</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">and</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">PAMELA RUSERE</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p> </p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">MANYANGADZE J</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">HARARE, 20 December 2021 and 14 January 2022</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p> </p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Urgent Chamber Application</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Mr M Ndlovu</span></span></span></i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">, for the applicant</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Mr K Siyeba</span></span></span></i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">, for the respondent</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            MANYANGADZE J:   This is an urgent chamber application for stay of execution pending determination of a court application for rescission of judgment.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            The application arises out of a judgment handed down by this court on 2 November 2021, under Case No. CIV ‘A’ 77/21.  In that case, the court allowed an appeal by the respondent against a dismissal of her application for rescission of a default judgment granted in the Magistrates’ Court under Case No. M577/20.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            The facts forming the background to the matter are largely, if not wholly common cause.  A brief outline thereof will help put the matter into clearer perspective.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            The applicant and the respondent have two (2) minor children aged 14 and 8.  The applicant was ordered by the Magistrates’ Court under Case No. M577/20 to pay maintenance for the said minor children in the sum of ZW$40 000.00 per month.  In addition he was ordered to pay school fees per term directly to the school the children were attending in South Africa.  This amounted to R49 000.00.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            The applicant appealed this decision to this court.  In a judgment handed down on 10 December 2020, the court, per TSANGA J and CHINAMHORA J, dismissed the appeal in respect of the ZW$40 000,00 monthly maintenance.  However, the appeal was partially allowed in respect of the school fees component.  The applicant was ordered to pay R$49 172.83 into the respondent’s local bank account at the prevailing auction rate.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            After a few months, the applicant applied for a downward variation of the maintenance ordered in that judgment.  In a default judgment handed down on 12 April 2021, under case No. M577/20, the Magistrates’ Court varied the maintenance from ZW$40 000.00 down to ZW$8 000.00.  The court ordered that the applicant pays school fees per term upon presentation of school invoices by the respondent.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            This judgment was granted in default of appearance by the respondent.  She applied for rescission of the default judgment.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            On 20 May 2021, the Magistrates’ Court dismissed the application for rescission of the default judgment.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            Aggrieved by this decision, the respondent noted an appeal with this court.  In a judgment handed down on 2 November 2021, per KWENDA J, MUCHAWA J and CHILIMBE J, the following order was granted:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            “IT IS ORDERED THAT:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <ol><li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The appeal is allowed.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The judgment of the court <i>a quo</i> is set aside and substituted with the following:</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:72px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">“The application for downward variation of the maintenance order in Case No. M577/20 be and is hereby dismissed.”</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <ol start="3"><li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The respondent shall pay the costs of this appeal on the ordinary scale.”</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The applicant and his legal practitioner did not attend the hearing where this order was granted.  The applicant learnt of this judgment from his legal practitioners on 3 December 2021.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">On 10 December 2021, the applicant filed an application for rescission of the judgment of 2 November 2021 under Case No. HC 7097/21.  The gravamen of this application is that that judgment was granted in error.  He therefore seeks to have the judgment rescinded on the basis of a patent error, as provided for in r 29(1)(b) of the High Court rules, 2021.  The patent error alleged by the applicant is that the court, after allowing the appeal against dismissal of the application for rescission of a default judgment and setting aside the default judgment, should not have gone on to dismiss the application for downwards variation of maintenance.  That should have been dealt with on the merits in the Magistrates’ Court.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">On the same date, i.e. 10 December 2021, the applicant filed the instant application.  He seeks stay of execution of the judgment under Case No. CIV ‘A’ 77/21, pending the determination of the application for rescission of the same under case No. 7097/21.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Before considering the merits of the application, I have to deal with points <i>in limine</i> raised by the respondent.  The respondent raised 8 points <i>in limine</i>.  These are that:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <ol><li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The application is improperly before the court.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The application was filed out of time.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The applicant is not in Form 23.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The application contains a defective draft order.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The applicant was not opposed to the relief being sought.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The application is based on an improper certificate of urgency.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The relief sought is incompetent.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The matter is not urgent.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[1]        <b><u>Application Improperly Before the Court</u></b></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            This preliminary point is based on a notice to the public issued by the Judicial Service Commission (JSC), advising the public of the temporary closure of superior courts from 9 December to 12 December 2021.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            The respondent avers that the application for rescission of judgment on which the application for stay of execution is premised, was filed on 10 December 2021.  That date falls within the period covered by the said JSC notice.  The notice says the registry departments of the courts will be open for all urgent matters.  The respondent contends that the application for rescission, being an ordinary court application, was improperly filed within the period of that notice, and is therefore fatally defective.   Consequently, the application for stay of execution is equally fatally defective based as it is on the application for rescission.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            In countering this submission, the applicant averred that the JSC notice does not have the same status as a Practice Direction by the Chief Justice or a statutory instrument.  It is an administrative measure that does not take away the rights of litigants.  Thus, the filing of the application for rescission did not violate a gazetted statutory instrument or the Chief Justice’s Practice Direction.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            Indeed, a look at the JSC notice shows that it was an administrative measure necessitated by confirmation of COVID-19 cases among members of staff.  Its purpose was to allow for fumigation and disinfection of the court premises.  It was issued by the Head of Corporate Service on behalf of the JSC.  Through the notice, the Head of Corporate Service is discharging her administrative mandate of communicating with the public and various stakeholders on behalf of the JSC.  The notice states, <i>inter alia</i>:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">“</span></span><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-ZW">The temporary closure will allow for fumigation, disinfection and deep cleaning of the premises.  We kindly ask our valued stakeholders and members of the public to bear with us as we contain the further spreading of the deadly virus.”</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            Such a notice cannot be viewed as a legal instrument that carries with it the force of law.  It cannot invalidate an application duly issued by the Registrar such as the one for rescission of judgment that was filed on 10 December 2021.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            This preliminary point is devoid of merit and cannot be upheld.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[2]        <b><u>The Application was filed out of time</u></b></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            It is not clear why this point has been raised.  What is before the court is an interlocutory application for stay of execution.  It has not been argued that this particular application is out of time.  The point relates to the main application.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            Be that as it may, the sequence of events outlined in the applicant’s founding affidavit, which has not been disputed, does not show that the application for rescission was filed out of time.  The applicant’s legal practitioners became aware of the default judgment on 1 December 2021.  The application was filed on 10 December 2021, seven (7) days later.  Rule 29(2) of the High Court Rules, 2021 requires that the application for rescission be made within one (1) month <u>after becoming aware of</u> the existence of the order or judgment.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            It cannot, in the circumstances, be said that the said application was out of time.  The point <i>in limine</i> is misplaced.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[3]        <b><u>Use of Form 23</u></b></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            Again the point relates to the pending application for rescission.  What is stated in the respondent’s notice of opposition is somewhat different from what was argued on her behalf on this point.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            During oral argument, the respondent’s counsel does not take issue with the form of the application <i>per se</i>, that is, whether or not it complies with Form 23.  He takes issue with the fact that the application does not give notice that the application will be heard by a panel of three Judges.  He argues that since the order the applicant seeks to rescind was granted by three judges, the applicant must give notice that the rescission by the applicant will be heard by a panel of three judges.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            In response, the applicant questions the relevance of this preliminary point, and rightly so.  </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            This is a set down issue, which is not for the parties to deal with.  The parties, after filing their papers, and paying the necessary costs relating to set down, simply await the notice of setdown, in which they will be advised which judge(s) will hear their matter.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            The respondent has not indicated the basis on which such an issue should be incorporated in a notice of application, and how it relates to Form 23.  The preliminary point lacks merit and should not be upheld.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[4]        <b><u>Defective Draft Order</u></b></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            The respondent avers that the draft order is in the form of a declaratory relief, in an application for stay of execution.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            There indeed appears to be a defect in the applicant’s papers.  Terms of the final order sought include declaring CIV ‘A’ 77/21 null and void.  This court cannot do that, as it is not seized with the application for rescission.  It is in that application that the status of the order in CIV ‘A’ 77/21 will be argued.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            The applicant appears to concede this defect.  He, however, points out that the interim relief is not defective.  It is a stay of execution.  A stay of executing, by its very nature, is interim.  It preserves the <i>status quo</i> pending determination of the parties’ substantive rights in the main matter.  In the instant case, these rights will be determined in the pending application under Case No. 9097/21.  So, stay of execution pending determination of Case No. 9097/21 is a proper relief.  For this reason, the point <i>in limine</i> must fail.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[5]        <b><u>Applicant was not Opposed to the Relief Sought</u></b></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">This point need not detain the court.  It reflects a misunderstanding of the applicant’s papers.  A perusal of the founding affidavit shows that the applicant was not opposed to the setting aside of the default judgment granted by the Magistrates’ court.  This would then pave the way for the hearing, on the merits, of the application for downward variation of the maintenance, in the Magistrates’ Court.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The respondent seems to be saying her prayer for the dismissal of the application for downward variation of maintenance was not opposed by the applicant.  This is incorrect.  The reason for the filing of the application for rescission in Case No. 9097/21 and the instant application, is the applicant’s opposition to the relief that was granted.  His contention is that the granting of this relief was not intended by the court and constitutes a patent error.  </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Again, the point <i>in limine</i> fails.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[6]        <b><u>The Application is based on an improper certificate of urgency</u></b></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The applicant avers that the certificate of urgency does not show why the legal practitioner concerned avers that the matter is urgent.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Again it is not clear why the respondent is making such an averment. The certificate of urgency contains 12 paragraphs, in which the legal practitioner is showing why the applicant filed a court application for rescission and an urgent application for stay. He is expressing his opinion why he considers the matter to be urgent, as contended by the applicant in response to this point.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The necessary details and evidence are contained in the applicant’s founding affidavit. One cannot expect such evidentiary details in a certificate of urgency.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            The respondent makes a bald and unsubstantiated averment that the certificate of urgency shows <i>mala fides</i> on the part of the legal practitioner.  The respondent has not pointed out any impropriety in the certificate of urgency. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Again, the point <i>in limine</i> lacks merit and cannot be upheld.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[7]         <b><u>The matter is not urgent</u></b></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            The submissions made under this item are brief. In the main, the respondent avers that the applicant submitted that he was not opposed to the relief being sought.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">This aspect has already been dealt with under point <i>in limine</i> number 5. The remarks made therein apply with equal force here.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            As already indicated, the undisputed facts are that the applicant was advised of the appeal outcome by his legal practitioners on 3 December 2021. He then set about consulting them on the issue.  This culminated in the two applications filed on 10 December 2021, being the court application for rescission of judgment and urgent chamber application for stay of execution pending the outcome of the application for rescission.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            Save for the flawed perception that the relief sought by respondent was not opposed by the applicant, the aspect of urgency is not one the respondent focused on. The respondent, it appears placed more emphasis on the other points <i>in limine</i>,which had a bearing more on the pending main application than the instant one.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            In light of that, the preliminary point cannot be upheld.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">I must point out that this is a matter where more time was spent on the preliminary points than the substantive application. This is undesirable, especially having regard to the fact that this was an interlocutory application, and most of the preliminary points raised seek to impugn the validity of the main application.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">I have dealt with 7 preliminary points.  The 8<sup>th</sup> preliminary point raises an aspect already dealt with in the other preliminary points, such as the number of judges who should deal with the application for rescission.  The other aspect relates more to the merits of the main application, being the question of whether or not the judgment sought to be rescinded was made in error.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The raising of preliminary points for the sake of it is frowned upon by the courts.  Most, if not all of the points raised in this matter had no merit and did not carry with them the potential to dispose of the matter.  As already indicated, argument on the preliminary points chewed up a huge chunk of the time allocated for the hearing of the case.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Legal practitioners ought to carefully reflect on the effect of points <i>in limine</i> they contemplate raising.  Instead of expediting the disposition of matters, they unduly prolong litigation. See <i>Telecel Zimbabwe (Pvt) Ltd</i> v <i>Postal and Telecommunications Regulatory Authority of Zimbabwe &amp; Others</i> HH 446/15.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            I now turn to the merits.  What is considered in an application for stay of execution has been set out in a number of cases. First and foremost, it must be noted that the execution of a judgment is a process of the court, and the court has an inherent power to manage that process. The court exercises a discretion whether or not to grant the relief of a stay of execution. This point was highlighted in the case of <i>Desmond Humbe</i> v <i>Muchina &amp; 4 Others</i> SC 81/21. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">Mathonsi JA</span> stated;</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-ZW">“The execution of a judgment is a process of the court. The court therefore retains an inherent power to manage that process having regard to the applicable rules of procedure. What is required for a litigant to persuade the court to exercise its discretion in favour of granting a stay in the execution of the court’s judgment has been stated in a number of cases.”</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The learned judge of appeal then went on to refer to the case of <i>Mupini</i> v <i>Makoni</i>  1993 (1) ZLR 80 (S) where it was stated that the court has a wide discretion in deciding whether or not to stay execution and in doing so will consider whether real and substantial justice so demands. In <i>Vengai Rushwaya</i> v <i>Nelson Bvungo</i> <i>&amp; Another</i> HMA 19/17 <span style="font-variant:small-caps">Mafusire J</span> noted that an application for stay of execution is a species of an interdict. As such an applicant must <i>inter alia</i> show an apprehension of an irreparable harm, a balance of convenience favouring the granting of the interdict and the absence of any other satisfactory remedy.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The learned judge, however, went on to show that a stay of execution has a wider discretion where the basis for granting relief is real and substantial justice. He stated, on p 5 of the cyclostyled judgment;</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">“O</span></span><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-ZW">n the other hand, in a stay of execution the requirement is simply r<b><u>eal and substantial justice</u></b>, see <i>Cohen v Cohen</i> 1979 (3) SA 420 (R) ; <i>Chibanda</i> v <i>King</i> 1983 (1) ZLR 116 (S), <i>Mupini </i>v <i>Makoni</i> 1993 (1) ZLR 80 (S) and <i>Muchapondwa</i> v <i>Manake &amp; Ors</i> 2006 (1) ZLR 196 (H). The premise on which a court may grant a stay of execution pending the determination of the main matter or an appeal is the inherent power reposed in it to control its own process. In <i>Cohen’s case</i> above GOLDIN J said:</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-ZW">“Execution is a process of the court and the court has an inherent power to control its own process subject to the Rules of court. Circumstances can arise where a stay of execution as sought here should be granted <b><u>on the basis</u></b> <b><u>of real and substantial justice</u></b>. Thus, where injustice would otherwise be caused, the court has the power and must generally speaking, grant relief.” (my emphasis)</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Turning to the instant case, the gravamen of the applicant’s averment is that the court made a patent error when it dismissed applicant’s application for downward variation of maintenance. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The applicant fears that the respondent will take steps to enforce or execute the said judgment, whilst an application for its rescission is pending. The enforcement of maintenance orders, quite often involves the criminal justice process. Non-compliance with a maintenance order is a criminal offence, which places the respondent at the risk of an arrest and prosecution, with the usual consequences that follow such a process. This is intended to compel the respondent to comply with the maintenance order. It appears it is in this context that the applicant avers in his founding affidavit that the order whose rescission he seeks puts his liberty at stake.</span></span></span>  </span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">In her notice of opposition, the respondent does not clearly and convincingly address the issue of the alleged patent error, so as to assist the court on the important question of whether or not the pending application for rescission carries with it prospects of success.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The respondent, in para 15 of her opposing affidavit, makes the broad and general averment that the High Court is empowered to grant any order which it deems appropriate when sitting as an appellate court. In view of this, there is no patent error in the appeal decision in question. This, it appears, is the gist of the averments made in most paragraphs of the opposing affidavit. The averments are to the effect that, due to the wide ranging appeal powers the High Court enjoys, it did not make any patent error warranting rescission. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">It seems the respondent fundamentally missed the point in the applicant’s averments, as expressed in paragraph 6 of the founding affidavit. In these averments, the applicant points out the issue that was before the court. This was the dismissal of the respondent’s application for rescission of the default judgment that varied her maintenance downwards. This, it appears was the gravamen of her appeal.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The question that then arises is whether or not that court, sitting in its appellate capacity, made a patent error when it went on to dismiss the applicant’s application for downward variation of maintenance. That is an issue the court that will deal with the pending application for rescission of judgment will be seized with.  Should that court agree with the applicant that there was indeed a patent error, within the scope of rule 29 (1) (b) of the High Court Rules, 2021, it will rescind the judgment concerned. The implication is that the parties will revert to the <i>status</i> <i>quo ante</i> i.e as at the date when the downward variation was granted. The parties will then ventilate the merits of the variation in the Magistrates’ Court. The respondent is likely to be faced with the daunting task of reimbursing any payments made in terms of the rescinded order. If the respondent’s opposition to the application for rescission is upheld, and the application is dismissed, the maintenance order will stand as per the appeal judgment in question. The applicant can then be made to pay for any shortfalls resulting from the order of stay of execution.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">In the circumstances, it is my considered view that it is appropriate and in accordance with real and substantial justice that execution of the judgment be stayed until the question of whether or not it was granted in error is resolved.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The court is mindful of the importance and sensitivity of the matter, involving as it does the welfare and interests of minor children. However, the court is not seized with an inquiry into what constitutes appropriate maintenance for the children. It is seized with an interlocutory application for stay of execution, whose reasons have already been adverted to. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"> It therefore has to look at the legal principles applicable in the resolution of such an application.  The parties’ substantive rights will be determined in the main matter, on which the interlocutory application is premised.  It is hoped that the setting down and disposition of that matter will be expedited.  Execution may then be pursued after the question of the legal status of the judgment is dealt with and clarified.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            In the result, it is ordered that:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <ol><li style="text-align:justify; margin-left:8px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The application be and is hereby granted.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li style="text-align:justify; margin-left:8px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Execution of the order issued in Case No. CIV ‘A’ 77/2021 be and is hereby stayed pending determination of the application for rescission filed under Case No. 9097/21.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li style="text-align:justify; margin-left:8px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Each party bears its own costs.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px; margin-left:48px"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Mutamangira &amp; Associates</span></span></i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">, applicant’s legal practitioners</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Bherebhende Law Chambers.,</span></span></span></i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"> respondent’s legal practitioners</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"> </p></span></div></div> </div> </div> Mon, 24 Jan 2022 09:23:53 +0000 Sandra Muengwa 11528 at http://www.zimlii.org Beach Consultancy (Private) Limited v Makonya and Another (696 of 2021) [2021] ZWHHC 696 (06 December 2021); http://www.zimlii.org/zw/judgment/harare-high-court/2021/696 <span class="field field--name-title field--type-string field--label-hidden">Beach Consultancy (Private) Limited v Makonya and Another (696 of 2021) [2021] ZWHHC 696 (06 December 2021);</span> <div class="field field--name-field-flynote field--type-entity-reference field--label-above"> <div class="field__label">Flynote</div> <div class='field__items'> <div class="field__item"><a href="/taxonomy/term/1585" hreflang="en">Locus Standi</a></div> <div class="field__item"><a href="/taxonomy/term/1657" hreflang="en">Stay of Execution</a></div> <div class="field__item"><a href="/taxonomy/term/1658" hreflang="en">Stay of Proceedings</a></div> <div class="field__item"><a href="/taxonomy/term/1667" hreflang="en">Company directors</a></div> <div class="field__item"><a href="/taxonomy/term/2269" hreflang="x-default">Urgent Application</a></div> </div> </div> <span class="field field--name-uid field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden"><span>Sandra Muengwa</span></span> <span class="field field--name-created field--type-created field--label-hidden">Tue, 01/11/2022 - 08:01</span> <div class="field field--name-field-files field--type-file field--label-above"> <div class="field__label">Download</div> <div class='field__items'> <div class="field__item"> <span class="file file--mime-application-vnd-openxmlformats-officedocument-wordprocessingml-document file--x-office-document"> <a href="https://media.zimlii.org/files/judgments/zwhhc/2021/696/2021-zwhhc-696.docx" type="application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document; length=42500">2021-zwhhc-696.docx</a></span> </div> <div class="field__item"> <span class="file file--mime-application-pdf file--application-pdf"> <a href="https://media.zimlii.org/files/judgments/zwhhc/2021/696/2021-zwhhc-696.pdf" type="application/pdf; length=565809">2021-zwhhc-696.pdf</a></span> </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-body field--type-text-with-summary field--label-hidden field__item"><p class="text-align-right">HH 696-21</p> <p class="text-align-right">HC 6557/21</p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">BEACH CONSULTANCY (PRIVATE) LIMITED</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">versus</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">OBERT MAKONYA                                                                        </span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">and</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">THE SHERIFF OF HIGH COURT                                                  </span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">MAKOMO J</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">HARARE, 22 November 2021 &amp; 6 December 2021</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Urgent Chamber Application</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">T. Mazikana</span></span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">, with her <i>S. Mapanje</i>, for the applicant</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="tab-stops:301.5pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">1<sup>st</sup> Respondent in person                                                             </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">No appearance for the 2<sup>nd</sup> Respondent</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">MAKOMO J: This is an urgent chamber application for stay of execution of a judgment delivered by this court on 1 October 2021. The Applicant seeks a provisional order in the following terms:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">“A.      TERMS OF THE FINAL ORDER SOUGHT</span></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">That you show cause why if any, a final order should not be made in the following terms:</span></span></span></span></p> <ol><li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">The property that has been attached by the 2<sup>nd</sup> Respondent pursuant to the aforementioned judgment and the writ of execution be and is hereby released from attachment.</span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">That the costs of this application shall be borne by the 1<sup>st</sup> Respondent at an attorney client scale.</span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">B.         INTERIM RELIEF GRANTED</span></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">Pending determination of this matter, the Applicant is granted the following relief:</span></span></span></span></p> <ol><li style="margin-left:80px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">That the 2<sup>nd</sup> Respondent be and is hereby ordered to stay any execution against the Applicant’s property pursuant to the writ of execution pending finalization of the application for a declaratory order under case number HC 6274/21.</span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:80px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">That the 2<sup>nd</sup> Respondent be and is hereby ordered not to remove and sell in execution the property of the Applicant that he seized and attached on the 17<sup>th</sup> of November 2021.</span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:80px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">That in the event that the removal of applicant’s goods has already been effected, the 2<sup>nd</sup> Respondent be and is hereby ordered to return the goods belonging to applicant.</span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:80px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">That should 1<sup>st</sup> Respondent oppose this application, he shall bear the costs on an attorney client scale.” </span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:120px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">A brief history of the case puts the dispute into perspective. The Applicant, Beach Consultancy (Private) Limited, is a company duly registered in terms of the laws of Zimbabwe and trades as the Aviation Ground Services. The first Respondent is a former employee of the Applicant. In 2013, the first Respondent was dismissed from his employment following some disciplinary procedures. Since then, the parties have been engaged in protracted litigation both in the Labour court and in this court. In April 2018, the parties negotiated and reached an out of court settlement wherein the Applicant would pay the first Respondent USD60 000 in full and final settlement of the first Respondent’s claim. Pursuant to that agreement the parties concluded a deed of settlement on 11 April 2018. In terms of the agreement, the applicant would liquidate its dues to first Respondent in three equal installments of USD20 000 starting 28 February 2019. Unfortunately, nothing was recorded as to when the other two installments would become due. The date of 28 February 2019 is crucial in the determination of the matter as I will demonstrate later due to the seismic legal developments that took place in the country effective 22 February 2019, that is, about six days before the first installment was due and payable.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">For reasons not stated, the Applicant did not pay on 28 February 2019 as agreed, neither did it do so on any subsequent date until 21 July 2021. In the meantime, the first respondent took steps to have the deed of settlement filed with the Labour court as its judgment on the dispute between the parties under case number LC/H/APP/216/2017. Again, no explanation is offered as to why this took inordinately long until 17 July 2019 when the deed of settlement was finally incorporated as the Labour Court’s judgment by consent of the parties. The order of the Labour Court is expressed in United States Dollars and has no alternative to pay in RTGS at the prevailing interbank rate. Critically, although the order was issued on 17 July 2019 that same order states that the first installment would be paid by February 2019. It can only be assumed that the intention of the court was to give effect to the deed of settlement signed by the parties. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Like a game of chess the parties sought to checkmate each other and sought to occupy the most advantageous position in this legal contestation. On 21 July 2021 the Applicant deposited RTGS60 000 into first Respondent’s bank account, following which its lawyers addressed a letter to first Respondent advising him of the payment and that Applicant was taking the position that this was the full and final settlement of its indebtedness to him. After a further flurry of communications between the parties, Applicant then filed with this court an application seeking a <i>declaratur</i> to the effect that the RTGS60 000 that it deposited into first Respondent’s bank account has extinguished the debt it owed to the first Respondent in line with the case of <i>Zambezi Gas Zimbabwe (Pvt) Ltd </i>v<i> NR Barber &amp; Anor</i> SC3/20. The Application is filed under HC6274/21 and is yet to be set down. On the other hand, as stated above, the legal battle continued with the first Respondent filing his own application for registration of the Labour Court judgment under case number HC6981/21, which order was registered by <span style="font-variant:small-caps">Chirawu-Mugomba J</span> on 1 October 2021. Soon thereafter, the first Respondent sued out a writ of execution against the property of the Applicant. On 17 November 2021 the Sheriff was at the premises of the applicant to attach its property. It is for the stay of this execution that the Applicant has now approached this court on an urgent basis.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">First Respondent has raised two points <i>in limine</i>. The first is that the founding affidavit by the Applicant’s deponent is not properly commissioned as the Commissioner of Oaths simply signed but failed to put a stamp stating that he/she is a Commissioner of Oaths and that his/her designation has not been specified. For this, it is argued that the affidavit is defective and must be disregarded. At the hearing it turned out that the copy on record had the stamp showing that the affidavit had been commissioned by one Pepukai Mabundu, a legal practitioner and Commissioner of Oaths. So was the copy being used by the Applicant. The omission on the first Respondent’s copy was acknowledged by <i>Ms. Mazikana</i> for the Applicant. She argued however, that the omission was not fatal since the court’s copy was properly commissioned and the error, which she blamed on the Commissioner of Oaths, could easily be rectified by handing a properly commissioned copy to the first Respondent. The point was not persisted with thereafter.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The second preliminary point is a challenge to the deponent’s authority to represent the company. First Respondent argues that the authority is defective in that the deponent was given blanket or general authority to represent the company in any legal proceedings involving the company when authority was supposed to be given for this specific case. The board resolution being challenged is drafted in the following terms:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">“<b>RESOLUTION OF THE DIRECTORS OF BEACH CONSULTANCY [PRIVATE] LIMITED T/A AVIATION GROUND SERVICES</b></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED AS THAT:</span></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">Caleb Mudyawabikwa as the Managing Director be and is hereby authorized to represent Beach Consultancy (Private) Limited on behalf of the company in all court cases thereof.”</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">As is clear from the resolution, it does not state the names of the parties neither does it state for which case the deponent has been authorized to represent the Applicant. It is a blanket authority giving the deponent mandate to represent Applicant in any court case, pending or any that may arise in future. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The cases of <i>Madzivire</i> v<i> Zvarivadza &amp; Another </i>2006 (1) ZLR 514 (S) and <i>Cuthbert Elkana Dube </i>v<i> Premier Service Medical Aid Society &amp; Another</i> SC73/19 were cited as the basis for challenging the resolution. The essence of first Respondent’s argument is that Applicant could not have authorized to be represented in this case on 10 June 2021, which is the date when the resolution was made, because as at that date it was not aware that these proceedings would arise. In other words, it could not validly authorize proceedings whose existence it was not aware of on 10 June 2021.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">I do not read the two cited cases as propositions that authority to represent a company must be given for each specific case. All they say is that any person representing an artificial person such as a company in litigation must have been properly authorized to do so by the board through a valid company resolution. In <i>Zvarivadza</i> (<i>supra</i>), which is the leading case in the country on the point, the learned judge of appeal states that:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><a name="_Hlk89300233" id="_Hlk89300233"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">“It is clear from the above that a company, being a separate legal person from its directors, cannot be represented in a legal suit by a person who has not been authorised to do so. This is a well-established legal principle, which the courts cannot ignore. It does not depend on the pleadings by either party.</span></a><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US"> The fact that the first appellant is the managing director of the fourth appellant does not clothe him with the authority to sue on behalf of the company in the absence of any resolution authorising him to do so.”</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">See also <i>Harold Crown &amp; Anor v Energy Resources Africa Consortium &amp; Anor</i> SC 3/17.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Convenience may dictate that a blanket authority be given in some cases. For instance, practice has arisen that the company secretary or a director may be authorized in a resolution to represent the company particularly in big corporates and other institutions which, because of the nature and size of their operations, may find themselves frequently engaged in litigation.  It may be argued that in such a scenario, it would be too onerous for the board to convene and pass resolutions granting such official or director authority to represent it each time the company is sued or it intends to institute litigation. Commercial and common sense may direct otherwise. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Unfortunately, this apparently convenient practice is in my view not supported by law. The current position of the law is that it must be shown that the corporate is aware of the proceedings that it is authorising. The reason for insistence on the company being aware of the proceedings is to confirm that it is indeed the company that has taken the decision to participate in the court case and that it is not an unauthorized person who is dragging it to court without its knowledge. Knowledge on the part of the company is required for the purpose of binding it to all the consequences of the litigation including payment of costs. Once it properly authorizes its participation in the litigation, it is estopped from denying liability once such adverse orders are made against it. This also protects the other parties in the litigation. In this regard, it was stated in <i>Cuthbert Elkana Dube </i>v<i> Premier Service Medical Aid and Another</i> SC73/19 on para 38 of the cyclostyled judgment that:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">“[38] The above remarks are clear and unequivocal. A person who represents a legal entity, when challenged, must show that he is duly authorized to represent the entity. His mere claim that by virtue of his position he holds in such an entity he is duly authorized to represent the entity is not sufficient. He must produce a resolution of the board of that entity which confirms that <b>the board is indeed aware of the proceedings and that it has given such a person the authority to act in the stead of the entity</b>. I stress that the need to produce such authority is only necessary in those cases where the authority of the deponent is put in issue. This represents the current status of the law in this country.”</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"> (bold for emphasis).</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Thus, a company resolution is required for two reasons, first, to prove that the entity is aware of the legal proceedings and has authorized them and, secondly, that the person representing it has been clothed with the requisite authority to represent it in the proceedings. The role of the resolution in confirming the entity’s awareness of the existence of the legal proceedings and that it has authorised its participation therein is paramount and more important than authority granted to the person to represent it. The position in South Africa is that what must be authorized are the proceedings and not the person deposing to the affidavits. In <i>Ganes </i>v<i> Telecom Namibia Ltd</i> [2004] 2 All SA 609 (SCA), Streitcher J lays the position to the following effect:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">“[19] </span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-GB">In my view it is irrelevant whether Hanke had been authorised to depose to the founding affidavit. The deponent to an affidavit in motion proceedings need not be authorised by the party concerned to depose to the affidavit. It is the institution of the proceedings and the prosecution thereof which must be authorised.”</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">See also <i>Staar Surgical (Pty) Ltd </i>v<i> Lodder</i> </span></span></span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">J1333/12, a judgment of the Labour Court of South Africa.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Despite the clear exposition of the law in the above authoritative and persuasive texts, the question that still confronts me in the instant case is whether an entity may give a general authority to a deponent for whatever litigation, that may not be known now but which may arise in future? The cases of <i>Madzivire</i> (<i>supra</i>) and <i>Cuthbert Elkana Dube</i> (<i>supra</i>) cited by the first Respondent for his objection to the founding affidavit by Applicant’s deponent do not answer this question. My diligent search in this jurisdiction has not taken me to a case that directly dealt with this question. The issue arose recently in <i>Musa Kika and Another </i>v<i> Luke Malaba and 18 Others</i> HH264/21 where the authority of the Secretary of the Judicial Service Commission to depose to the affidavit on behalf of the JSC was challenged. In that case, the Secretary Mr Walter Chikwana had produced a blanket authority given to him by the JSC in his capacity as Secretary “to sign documents on behalf of the JSC in litigation matters”. Unfortunately, the court left the question open as it found it unnecessary to directly answer this question in the circumstances of that matter. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">I am aware that there are two divergent approaches by this court on production of a deponent’s authority to represent a company. The first takes a liber