COSTSThe respondent prayed for punitive costs. In the circumstances of this matter, an award of punitive costs is merited.The appeal was frivolous and vexatious and a clear abuse of court process.The appellant irrationally sought to impugn the judgment of this Court in Nherera v Shah 2019 (1) ZLR 462 (S); ...
COSTS
The respondent prayed for punitive costs. In the circumstances of this matter, an award of punitive costs is merited.
The appeal was frivolous and vexatious and a clear abuse of court process.
The appellant irrationally sought to impugn the judgment of this Court in Nherera v Shah 2019 (1) ZLR 462 (S); SC51-19 where it is trite that the judgment was final and binding on the court a quo. He further sought to impute corruption on the respondent, relying on decisions in this Court and the High Court which related not only to a different case but in which the respondent was not a party on the basis of what he said was a “relationship of corruption between the appellant and the respondent.”
It is difficult to fathom how the respondent could have been held to be corrupt on the basis of a relationship of corruption between the parties.
The appellant was represented by counsel who should have known better.
The appellant has been unrepentant. He has not shown an iota of contrition.
Because of his unrepentance, he has kept the respondent on the judicial radar for the past eighteen years, since 2005 when the respondent was arrested.
This appeal reflects the appellant's resolve at not taking full ownership of his malicious conduct and the consequences thereof. He in fact had the temerity to pray for punitive costs against the respondent, playing the trump card of a patriotic citizen when in fact he has, to use his own term “unrelentingly persisted with (the respondent's) persecution.”
In Chioza v Sawyer 1997 (2) ZLR 178 (SC), it was held that:
“On this basis, I have no hesitation in dismissing the appeal. Nor do I think we can resist the prayer for costs on the higher scale. The appeal was always doomed to failure, and, litigants, although they have a right to appeal, should not be permitted to force their opponents to incur costs when the appeal is hopeless.
It is true we do not penalise every hopeless appeal in this way: see Mutede v Duly & Co. Ltd SC202-93. But, the present case has an element of harassment which justifies such an award: see, generally, Sentrachem Ltd v Prinsloo 1997 (2) SA 1 (A) at 21F; Nel v Waterberg Landbouwers Ko-operatiewe Vereeniging 1946 AD 597 at 607; and Cilliers Law of Costs 2ed p54 et seq.”
See also Borrowdale Country Club v Murandu 1987 (2) ZLR 77 (H)....,.
1. The appeal be and is hereby dismissed with costs on the legal practitioner and client scale
