This
matter came before me in motion court on the 15th of May
2014. I dismissed the application and indicated that my reasons would
follow.
These
are my reasons.
On
the 5th September 2012, the applicant, who was represented by legal
practitioners, filed an application for review under case number
HC3004/12. The order sought by the applicant in the Draft Order is in the
following terms:-
“1.
The distribution account by 1st Respondent and confirmed by the 7th
Respondent be and is hereby set aside.
2.
The 1st Respondent be and is hereby ordered to draw a new
distribution account within 30 days of service of this court order.
3.
The costs of suit on an attorney and client scale shall be borne by any person
who opposes this application.”
After
the filing of the application, there was no activity in this matter until seven
months later when the applicant filed another Application for Condonation for
The Late Filing of the Review application. This second application was lodged
with this court on the 19th April 2013. There was no movement
in the matter until October 2013 when the matter was enrolled on the unopposed
roll. Certain queries were raised in court and then the matter resurfaced
again in motion court on the 15th April 2014.
The
procedure for application for reviews is governed by the provisions of Order 33
of the High Court Rules. Any proceedings by way of a review shall be
instituted within 8 weeks of the action or proceedings in which the
irregularity or illegality complained of is alleged to have occurred.
In
the instant case, the decision sought to be reviewed is a distribution account
prepared by the first respondent and dated 31st October
2007. The distribution account was confirmed by the seventh respondent on
the 17th January 2008 - this is some six years ago. It is
apposite to note that some of the assets in the distribution account includes
cattle, goats, donkeys, household property and an immovable property in Pumula,
Bulawayo. I have no doubt that the goats and other livestock have long
been distributed in accordance with the distribution account.
No
reasonable explanation has been given to this court for the delay in bringing
this application. In any event, and further, the applicant, who has always
been represented by legal practitioners has shown no interest at all in the
pursuit of this application. The conduct of the applicant is a flagrant
abuse of court process. These courts are inundated with applications which
are filed and never prosecuted. This habit has become common place and
some legal practitioners do not even care to check the rules of the court
before filing applications. One cannot understand how an application to
review a decision made way back in 2007 can be made without first seeking
condonation. It is baffling that after filing the initial Application for
Review on the 5th September 2012, it took the applicants several
months before filing what purports to be an Application for Condonation for the
Late Filing of the Review application. The application itself was only
placed on the unopposed roll on 15th May 2014.
The
application itself does not disclose the reasons for the delay in bringing the
matter to court.
The
matter is clearly not properly before the court, and, as already indicated,
amounts to an abuse of court process.
In
the result, the application was dismissed.
