Law Portal
Zimbabwe

Welcome To Law Portal

Welcome, Guest!
[Help?]

Urgency re: Approach iro Time, Consequent and Remedial Alternative Considerations of Urgency

Appealed
HH150-12 : CLETUS CHUKWUKA ANUEYIANGU vs CHIEF IMMIGRATION OFFICER and THE CO-MINISTERS OF HOME AFFAIRS and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ZIMBABWE
Ruled By: MAVANGIRA J

The applicant further proffers an explanation for the delay of seven days from the time of his arrest to the time of the filing of this application. He stated that he was, during that intervening period, trying to engage the first respondent - in vain.
More

Appealed
SC20-12 : ZIMBABWE OPEN UNIVERSITY vs GIDEON MAGARAMOMBE and DEPUTY SHERIFF HARARE N.O.
Ruled By: CHIDYAUSIKU CJ

This is a Chamber application in which the applicant, the Zimbabwe Open University (hereinafter referred to as "the University"), seeks the following relief –(a) An order that the appeal, SC25-12, be heard on an urgent basis; and(b) A stay of the sale in execution of the University's property, attached in ...
More

HH133-12 : MONICA CHIKOORE vs J P KADZIYA and DISTRICT ADMINISTRATOR, KADOMA DISTRICT and MINISTRY OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT
Ruled By: MATHONSI J

This is an urgent application in which the applicant seeks the following relief:“1. Terms of the Final Order SoughtThat you should show cause to this Honourable Court why an order should not be made in the following terms:(a) That the proposed meeting of 10 March be and is hereby set ...
More

HH40-09 : DODHILL (PVT) LTD and SIMON KEEVIL vs THE MINISTER OF LANDS AND RURAL RESETTLEMENT and NYASHA CHIKAFU
Ruled By: BERE J

The first applicant is Dodhill (Pvt) Ltd, a company with limited liability duly registered in accordance with the laws of Zimbabwe. The second applicant is the director and shareholder of the first applicant.The first respondent is the Minister of Lands and Rural Resettlement, cited in his capacity as the acquiring ...
More

HH159-12 : URMILLA GIGA vs ALBION PROPERTIES and MESSENGER OF COURT HARARE and APPLISET INVESTMENTS (PVT) LTD
Ruled By: UCHENA J

The applicant was the first respondent's tenant at Number 5 Albion House, 74 Harare. She was evicted from the premises without being given 48 hours notice as provided by Rule 4A(1) of Order 26 of the Magistrate's Court (Rules 1980).She seeks an order of this court reinstating her into the ...
More

HH73-12 : CHIKOMBA RURAL DISTRICT COUNCIL vs KENNETH MUNDOPA and DEPUTY SHERIFF CHIVHU
Ruled By: MUTEMA J

When the parties appeared before me in chambers on 27 January 2012, I directed their legal practitioners to file heads of argument before I could make a determination on the matter. This they have done. I had discerned that the resolution of the real dispute between the parties hinged on ...
More

HH08-12 : LOREEN MASHANGWA vs CHRISPEN BHADHI and TICHA DARANGWA and THE MINING COMMISSIONER GWERU
Ruled By: MAWADZE J

This is an urgent chamber application for a provisional order whose interim relief sought is stated as follows:“INTERIM RELIEF GRANTEDPending determination of the lawful owner of ANSH NORTH situated on the following map coordinates;Point A 0187976 ...
More

HH23-09 : TUVIGARI INVESTMENTS (PRIVATE) LIMITED vs LUCY CHIREMBA (nee Gotora) AND TWO OTHERS
Ruled By: BERE J

It is now trite that a litigant cannot benefit from self-created urgency. A matter does not become urgent merely because a party has failed to take corrective measures timeously. The delay in filing the instant application has not been adequately explained by both the applicant (through its founding affidavit) as well as its counsel through submissions made ...
More

HH99-12 : SHUNGU ENGINEERING (PVT) LTD vs SIMBARASHE SANGONDIMAMBO & ORS
Ruled By: MATHONSI J

This is an urgent application in which the applicant seeks a provisional order in the following terms:-“(A) TERMS OF FINAL ORDER SOUGHTThat you show cause to this Honourable Court why a final order should not be made in the following terms:1. That the execution of the Arbitral Award in case ...
More

HH36-08 : MASIMBA KUCHERA and MICHAEL MUZA and TAFADZWA RUGOHO vs MINSTER OF JUSTICE, LEGAL AND PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS
Ruled By: GUVAVA J

This matter was filed as an urgent chamber application in terms of Rule 241 of the High Court Rules. The applicants were seeking the following urgent relief:“Pending the confirmation or discharge of the provisional order, the following provisional order is granted:1. The Presidential Powers (Temporary Measures) (Amendment of Electoral Act) ...
More

HH37-08 : MOVEMENT FOR DEMOCRATIC CHANGE and MORGAN TSVANGIRAI vs CHAIRPERSON, ZIMBABWE ELECTORAL COMMISSION and CHIEF ELECTIONS OFFICER, ZIMBABWE ELECTORAL COMMISSION
Ruled By: UCHENA J

The first applicant, the Movement for Democratic Change, is a political party, commonly known as the (“MDC”). It will be referred to as the first applicant. The second applicant, Mr Morgan Tsvangirai, is its President. He was the first applicant's Presidential candidate in the just ended harmonized elections held on ...
More

HH166-09 : THE DIOCESAN TRUSTEES FOR THE DIOCESE OF HARARE vs THE CHURCH OF THE PROVINCE OF CENTRAL AFRICA
Ruled By: HLATSHWAYO J

Re: HC 2792/09 (urgent application) Once more, the issue of locus standi has been addressed and decided. As far as the merits of the interim order sought are concerned, the applicants need only establish a prima facie case. That the applicant will suffer irretrievable harm if the proposed consecration of a new Bishop of the Diocese of Harare proceeds ...
More

HB31-09 : ZIMBABWE NATIONAL ARMY vs RANGARIRAYI GUNDA
Ruled By: NDOU J

The respondent has raised four points in limine...,. The first one is whether this application is urgent. The only reason proffered that I am able to glean, which makes some remote reference to urgency, is contained in paragraphs (iii) and (iv) of the certificate of urgency filed. The other paragraphs do not refer to urgency at ...
More

HB40-09 : ERICK TANGWARA vs BHEKISIPO FUYANA
Ruled By: CHEDA J

On the 6th day of February 2009, the applicant filed an urgent chamber application whose relief was couched as follows:- “TERMS OF FINAL ORDER SOUGHT The Provisional Order granted in this matter be and is hereby confirmed in the following terms:- 1. The Applicant be and is hereby given possession of a Nissan Maxima Motor vehicle Reg No: AAX 4540. 2. Respondent to ...
More

HB57-09 : TRYSON INVESTMENTS vs MAPLE LEAF MINING (represented by Cecil Madondo N. O.) and MINING COMMISSIONER
Ruled By: NDOU J

The respondent has raised points in limine which I propose to deal with..., in turn. Urgency The certificate of urgency is scant. The founding affidavit is not helpful either. All the applicant states is - “Applicant fears that should operations continue at the disputed claims it will suffer irreparable harm. Applicant has already invested into the mining claims by ...
More

HB61-09 : SARAH MLANGENI vs TREZIAH NDLOVU
Ruled By: BERE J

I am satisfied, after ploughing through the documents filed, and hearing thorough submissions by counsel, that the applicant in this matter has established a prima facie right which prompted her to file this urgent chamber application. I am also satisfied, on a preponderance of probabilities, that her right is under threat from the respondent, and that ...
More

HB66-09 : SIPHILISIWE SIZIBA vs SOPHIE MATIMBA N.O. and QHUBEKANI MABUZA NCUBE
Ruled By: KAMOCHA J

Was the applicant justified in bringing the review proceedings on an urgent basis? My view is that she was not. Although the trial magistrate erred in granting a variation order without hearing from the other party, it did not, in any way, stop the applicant from continuing with her application in terms of section 23 of the ...
More

HB71-09 : ROSEMARY CHIGANZE (as the guardian of LEWIS DUBE, a minor) vs PATIENCE MAPHOSA (personally and as a guardian of..., a minor) and THABANI LIHLE SIZIBA N.O. and ASSISTANT MASTER OF THE HIGH COURT
Ruled By: NDOU J

The applicant filed this application under a certificate of urgency without explaining why the domestic route provided for in section 59(8) and (9) of the Administration of Estates Act [Chapter 6:01] cannot remedy the issue she is complaining about. She has not approached the third respondent to postpone, or stay the period. The applicant has not ...
More

HH57-10 : AFRICAN CONSOLIDATED RESOURCES PLC and OTHERS vs MINISTER OF MINES AND MINING DEVELOPMENT and SECRETARY FOR MINES AND MINING DEVELOPMENT and CHIEF MINING COMMISSIONER
Ruled By: UCHENA J

The first applicant is a public company listed on the London Stock Exchange. The second to fifth applicants (Dashaloo Investments (Pvt) Ltd, Possession Investments (Pvt) Ltd, Heavy Stuff Investments (Pvt) Ltd, Olebile Investments (Pvt) Ltd) are Zimbabwean companies duly incorporated in terms of the laws of Zimbabwe. They are wholly ...
More

HH70-10 : CHURCH OF THE PROVINCE OF CENTRAL AFRICA vs ELSON M JAKAZI and ALEX & WEBB REALITY and THE REGISTRAR OF DEEDS
Ruled By: UCHENA J

UrgencyCounsel for the first and second respondents submitted that the application is not urgent because the mandate was given in August 2009 and nothing happened until 18 March 2010. He further submitted that the mandate was overtaken by the consent order of 12 October 2009. He further submitted that the urgency is premised on hearsay ...
More

HH108-10 : INYANGA DOWNS ORCHARDS vs EDWARD BUWU
Ruled By: MUSAKWA J

Lastly, counsel for the respondent took issue with the delay by the applicant to institute the proceedings. He submitted that from a reading of the founding affidavit the cause of action arose on 10 May 2010. If that is the case, there is no explanation why the application was not made a few days ...
More

HH120-10 : KINGSTONS LIMITED vs FML PROPERTIES (PRIVATE) LIMITED and DEPUTY SHERIFF
Ruled By: CHIWESHE JP

Further, and in any event, this matter is not urgent. The applicant has been aware of the attachment of the property by the Deputy Sheriff since 27 May 2010. On 2 June 2010, the applicant's representative signed a security bond binding himself as surety and promised that the goods placed under judicial attachment shall not be ...
More

SC17-14 : ANTHONY HICKEY vs DMC HOLDINGS PL and CHRISTMAS GIFT PL and ROGERIO B.A. DE SA and NATIONAL SOCIAL SECURITY AUTHORITY
Ruled By: ZIYAMBI JA, GARWE JA and PATEL JA

This is an appeal against a decision of the High Court dismissing an urgent application brought by the appellant in which he sought certain interim relief. The learned judge found, firstly, that the matter was not urgent, and, secondly, that the appellant had no locus standi to make the application. The facts which are common cause are that ...
More

HH152-10 : MARATHON GROUP OF COMPANIES T/A HARRISON AND HUGHSON (PVT) LTD vs ALSTOM ZIMBABWE (PVT) LTD and MESSENGER OF COURT, HARARE
Ruled By: MUTEMA J

This is an urgent chamber application for a provisional order whose interim relief sought was couched in these terms:“1. That the second respondent be and is hereby ordered to stay ejectment of applicant from the premises known as 93 Coventry Road, Harare pending the hearing of this urgent application for ...
More

HH163-10 : BISSY BEE (PVT) LTD vs GRAIN MARKETING BOARD and BRUKMARK MICROFINANCE (PVT) LTD and DEPUTY SHERIFF-CHITUNGWIZA
Ruled By: MUSAKWA J

Secondly, it was contended that the matter lacks urgency. This is premised on the argument that the applicant was served with the Notice of Seizure on 30 June 2010, and yet the present application was only filed on 9 July 2010. The delay in making the application is not explained. Counsel for the applicant submitted that ...
More

HH171-10 : AUTOWORLD (PRIVATE) LIMITED and ECONET WIRELESS (PRIVATE) LIMITED vs ZIMBABWE REVENUE AUTHORITY
Ruled By: MUTEMA J

This matter came before me via the Chamber Book on the basis of perceived urgency. The applicants are desirous of a provisional order whose interim relief is couched in this vein - “Pending determination of this matter, the first and second applicant is (sic) granted the following relief:- 1. That the motor vehicles impounded by the ...
More

SC03-15 : PORTLAND HOLDINGS LIMITED vs TUPELOSTEP INVESTMENTS (PROPRIETARY) LIMITED and TOBACCO WAREHOUSE & EXPORT t/a BAK LOGISTICS
Ruled By: ZIYAMBI JA, GOWORA JA and OMERJEE AJA

After hearing counsel in this matter, we allowed the appeal with costs and issued an order in the following terms:“IT IS ORDERED THAT:-1. The appeal succeeds with costs.2. The judgment of the court a quo is set aside and substituted with the following:“The application is hereby granted in terms of the draft order.”We ...
More

HH194-10 : MANDLENKOSI NHLIZIYO vs GREYS SERVICES STATION and HILLARY NDEBELE and THE DEPUTY SHERIFF
Ruled By: MAWADZE J

The third point in limine raised by counsel for the first respondent is that this matter is not urgent, and, that on that basis, I should decline to hear the merits of the case. In the case, of Kuvarega v Registrar General Anor 1998 (1) ZLR 188 CHATIKOBO J aptly dealt with what ...
More

HH146-10 : THE GOSPEL OF GOD CHURCH INTERNATIONAL 1932 vs SIMBARASHE MUKAMBIRWA and MARKO NCUBE and MUSARURWA HOMBARUME and OTHERS
Ruled By: BHUNU J

I tend to agree with the applicants' objection in limine. Indeed, I can perceive nothing objectionable in MAKONI J's default order warranting that it be stayed as a matter of urgency. The order simply requires the parties to peacefully co-exist and share the shrine which they previously used together. The order is lawful and binding until it is ...
More

HH144-10 : ARTUR FERNANDO PEREIRA DIAS vs DAWID JOHANNES ERASMUS and ZHAOSHENG WU and YAN YU and ERASMUS ACCOUNTING & EXECUTOR SERVICES (PVT) LTD and OTHERS
Ruled By: GOWORA J

Urgency It was contended by the respondents' respective counsel that the transactions complained of had occurred on 15 April 2005, which is a document purportedly signed by the first and second applicants. Indeed, in paragraph 12 of the founding affidavit, there is confirmation that the alleged Agreement occurred in 2005. The paragraph further confirms that ...
More

HH138-10 : ISHMAEL PHIRI vs FBC BANK LIMITED and DEPUTY SHERIFF OF ZIMBABWE
Ruled By: MUSAKWA J

Counsel for the first respondent also argued that the matter lacks urgency. He pointed out that following the granting of the consent order a letter was written to the applicant's legal practitioners on 4 March 2010. The letter reads as follows- “1. We refer to the Order by Consent in the above matter. 2. We are advised that your ...
More

HH260-10 : ALDRIDGE TIMOTHY FISHER vs CHRISTINE FISHER
Ruled By: MTSHIYA J

In support of the urgent application the certificate of urgency reads, in part, as follows - “1. Accordingly, it is certain that execution of this default judgment is now imminent when in fact applicant denies being indebted to the respondent in the sums claimed, or at all, and had entered an appearance to defend the ...
More

HB17-10 : NQOBANI SITHOLE vs SENIOR ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER – OFFICER COMMANDING POLICE – MAT. SOUTH PROVINCE – N. SIBANDA and COMMISSIONER GENERAL and THE MINISTER OF HOME AFFAIRS
Ruled By: NDOU J

The respondents raised two points in limine. First, they alleged that the matter is not urgent at all. In his founding affidavit, the applicant has not dealt with the question of urgency seriously. All he states is- “My right to education is being infringed by the transfer to Murewa in that all my studies will be affected ...
More

HB190-11 : KALAYI NJINI vs BERTHILDE JULIET NJINI and SOLWAYO NGWENYA and BULAWAYO CITY COUNCIL
Ruled By: CHEDA J

This is an urgent application seeking to suspend the construction and development of a maternity and gynaecological clinic or medical suite at Stand Number 18 Hillside, Bulawayo.The facts of the matter are that the applicants are an elderly couple residing at 54 Cecil Avenue, Hillside, Bulawayo. The first respondent is ...
More

HB23-10 : SANITA CONSTRUCTION (PVT) LTD vs OBERT MPOFU and DRASTIC CONSTRUCTION COMPANY (PVT) LTD
Ruled By: NDOU J

The applicant seeks a provisional order in the following terms- “Terms of final order sought That the first and second respondents should show cause to this honourable court why a final order should not be made on the following terms: (a) That the first respondent be and is hereby permanently interdicted from chasing away the applicant company as the ...
More

HB56-10 : GRACE KHUMALO vs PARIS MPOFU and THE DEPUTY SHERIFF
Ruled By: MATHONSI J

What appears to have prompted the current application is the attachment and removal of the applicant's property by the Deputy Sheriff of Bulawayo on the 31st May 2010 in order to realize the balance of the order granted in his favour on 19th February 2010 - which order the applicant has been aware of ...
More

HB87-10 : METALLION GOLD ZIMBABWE vs EUROTECH PLANT & EQUIPMENT (PVT) LTD and THE DEPUTY SHERIFF
Ruled By: MATHONSI J

The background of the matter is that starting about the 17th June 2007 and following then, the first respondent supplied the applicant with mining equipment at the applicant's special instance and request. Invoices for payment were submitted in Zimbabwe dollars but no payment was made for the relevant invoices. During subsequent months, and indeed ...
More

HB146-10 : MILTON NCUBE vs MESSENGER OF COURT, BULAWAYO N.O. and HONOURED NCUBE
Ruled By: MATHONSI J

Under case number HC1995/08, the applicant obtained a provisional order against the second respondent interdicting him from executing the judgment of the Magistrates Court. That provisional order was subsequently discharged on 29 October 2009. On 18 December 2009, the applicant sought leave from the second respondent to sell the properties by private treaty and he was ...
More

HH37-13 : CHAMPION CONSTRUCTORS (PVT) LTD vs MILTON GARDENS ASSOCIATION and THE CITY OF HARARE and THE DIRECTOR OF URBAN PLANNING SERVICES and DIRECTOR OF WATER SERVICES and ANOTHER
Ruled By: MATHONSI J

Secondly, counsel for the first respondent took the point that the matter is not urgent. I do not consider it necessary to determine all the preliminary points as I am of the view that the matter is simply not urgent. I have painstakingly set out the history of the matter in order to demonstrate that this ...
More

HH52-11 : AMAPLAT MAURITIUS LTD and AMARI NICKEL HOLDINGS ZIMBABWE LTD vs ZIMBABWE MINING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION and THE CHIEF MINING COMMISSIONER and OTHERS
Ruled By: MUTEMA J

The applicants seek interim relief on an urgent basis in the following terms: “1. The first respondent be and is hereby interdicted from alienating or otherwise disposing of or dealing with the rights of the third and fourth respondents arising out of the Memoranda of Understanding concluded between the applicants and the first respondent at Harare ...
More

HH77-11 : FAISAL MUHAMMAD and SHEIKH ABDUL SALAM vs PRINCIPAL DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION and CO-MINISTERS OF HOME AFFAIRS
Ruled By: MUTEMA J

I found it unnecessary to deal with the merits of the matter because the application can simply be disposed of on the issue of urgency. In this regard, the words of CHATIKOBO J in Kuvarega v Registrar-General Another 1998 (1) ZLR 188 (HC)…, bear useful repetition for clarity. He said - “There is an ...
More

HH104-11 : NATIONAL FOODS LIMITED vs GODFREY NGWARU and LINOS CHINGONGA and CLOUD ZINGUNDE and DEPUTY SHERIFF HARARE N.O.
Ruled By: MTSHIYA J

The chronology of events in this matter throws me to the side of the respondents. The applicant does not deny that it was duly served with a chamber application for the registration of the award of 3 February 2011. The award, whose registration the applicant says it could not interfere with, is the same award ...
More

View Appeal
HH129-13 : AIR ZIMBABWE [PRIVATE] LIMITED and AIR ZIMBABWE HOLDINGS [PRIVATE] LIMITED vs STEPHEN NHUTA and DEPUTY SHERIFF HARARE and SHERIFF FOR ZIMBABWE
Ruled By: MAFUSIRE J

I dismissed the urgent chamber application firstly for lack of urgency. It was argued on behalf of the applicants that the need to act had arisen from 13 April 2013 when Stephen Nhuta had caused the re-attachment of the assets. In the certificate of urgency it was stated that the removal of the assets had ...
More

HH327-13 : CHAPARREL TRADING (PRIVATE) LIMITED vs ZIMBABWE ENERGY REGULATORY AUTHORITY (ZERA)
Ruled By: MAVANGIRA J

Furthermore, the applicant avers, that this matter is…, deserving of urgent attention by this court…..,. Furthermore, the respondent contends, the matter is not urgent as the applicant was aware since 21 June 2013 that its application for a petroleum licence was refused but did not do anything until now - some three months later….,. I am ...
More

Appealed
HH158-11 : TRUSTCO MOBILE (PTY) LIMITED and TRUSTCO GROUP INTERNATIONAL (PTY) LIMITED vs ECONET WIRELESS (PRIVATE) LIMITED and FIRST MUTUAL LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY (PRIVATE) LIMITED
Ruled By: MUTEMA J

WHETHER OR NOT THE MATTER IS URGENT The case relied upon by both sides is the often cited one of Kuvarega v Registrar General Anor 1998 (1) ZLR 188 (H). On the papers before me, the need to act arose on 5 June 2011 when the first respondent switched off the first applicant's ...
More

HH358-13 : TRY NYAMUKONDA and LEN SMIT vs SOMEDEN INVESTMENTS T/A SABLE MINING AFRICA LIMITED and SHERIFF OF THE HIGH COURT
Ruled By: MANGOTA J

In regard to the first preliminary point, the first respondent produced nothing to show that the matter was not urgent. What it only did was to state that the application was not urgent and to educate the court on what it means when one says a matter is urgent. Its volunteered education of the ...
More

HB05-13 : HWANGE COLLIERY LTD vs MINISTER OF HIGHER & TERTIARY EDUCATION and DEPUTY SHERIFF, HWANGE DISTRICT
Ruled By: KAMOCHA J

When the default judgment was granted on, 1 November 2012, no action was taken by the defendant until 16 November 2012 when it filed its appeal. A writ of execution was served on it on 7 November 2012 but the defendant did nothing to protect whatever right it might have thought it had until ...
More

HB12-11 : TRIANGLE LIMITED vs ZIMBABWE REVENUE AUTHORITY
Ruled By: NDOU J

The respondent has raised a point in limine that the matter is not urgent. I propose to firstly deal with this issue and consider the other issues if need be. Because of the point in limine, I have to determine whether the applicant has established that it will suffer irreparable harm if this applicant is not ...
More

HB29-11 : TINOFARA KUDAKWASHE HOVE vs THE COMMISSIONER-GENERAL ZIMRA
Ruled By: MATHONSI J

I propose to deal first with the issue of urgency. Counsel for the respondent strongly argued that the applicant does not state in his founding affidavit why he considers the matter urgent, that the certificate of urgency itself is not helpful at all and that it has not been shown that the applicant will ...
More

HB59-13 : COMMISSIONER GENERAL OF POLICE vs FARAI BASIL NYAPOKOTO
Ruled By: MAKONESE J

1. Urgency The respondent contends that there is no urgency in the matter in that default judgment was obtained on 16th June 2011 and application for rescission of judgment was only filed on the 29th November 2011. There was no application for condonation for late filing of the application for rescission of judgment and there are ...
More

Back Main menu

Categories