Court name
Harare High Court
Case number
HC 2530 of 2015

FBC Bank Ltd v RIOZIM Ltd & Anor (HC 2530 of 2015) [2015] ZWHHC 576 (23 June 2015);

Law report citations
Media neutral citation
[2015] ZWHHC 576
Coram
Bhunu J

1

HH 576-15

HC 2530/15

 

FBC BANK LIMITED

versus

RIOZIM LIMITED

and

THE REGISTRAR OF HIGH COURT

 

 

HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE

BHUNU J

HARARE, 15 April 2015and 05 & 24 June 2015

 

 

Chamber Application for Directions

 

N.R. Mutasa, for the applicant

Ms D. Ndawana, for the respondent

 

 

BHUNU J: This matter came before me as an application for the case number HC 923/15 to be set down on an urgent basis. The draft order sought reads:

“IT IS ORDERED THAT

  1. The matter under case No. HC 923/15 be set down for hearing on urgent basis on the      day of       2015 at       am/pm for confirmation/or discharge of the Provisional Order granted on 5 February 2015.
  2. The Second Respondent shall ensure that the matter is enrolled for a hearing on the said date.
  3. The First Respondent shall pay the costs of this application on a legal practitioner and client scale jointly and severally with their legal Practitioner Ms Duduzile Ndawana debones propriis.”

The file then came before me on 15 April 2015. I initially in error mistakenly treated the matter as unopposed and endorsed on the record of proceedings, “Default order granted in terms of the draft’.  Upon realising my error I cancelled the endorsement together with my signature on the draft order. I am now not quite sure what happened because the record now shows that after the cancelation I again endorsed on the face of the record of proceedings, ‘Order granted in terms of the Draft.’ I however did not sign the draft order for the second time.

In error the Registrar prepared an order using a draft order with my cancelled signature.

On 4 June 2015 Ms Ndawana wrote complaining about the award of costs debonis propriis. I then set down the matter for a hearing in chambers. At that hearing I explained that the costs debonis propriis had been granted in error and corrected the error in terms of r 449.

At that hearing Ms Ndawana sought to query the order of costs at the higher scale. My response was that as her initial complaint was specific to costs debonis propriis she was restricted to that point raised. This prompted Ms Ndawana to write again to the registrar complaining about the costs at the higher scale. It is only then upon closer scrutiny of the record of proceedings that I discovered that the registrar in error had prepared an order using a draft order with my cancelled signature.

What this means is that the whole order prepared by the registrar was made in error and therefore a nullity. The faulty order can be corrected mero motu by cancellation in terms of r 449. It is accordingly ordered:

  1. That the order issued by the registrar in this matter dated 15 April 2015 be and is hereby cancelled.
  2. That there is no order as to costs.

 

 

Costa and Mudzonga, applicant’s legal practitioners

Gill Godlonton and Gerrans, respondent’s legal practitioners