Law Portal
Zimbabwe

Welcome To Law Portal

Welcome, Guest!
[Help?]

Jurisdiction re: Functus Officio iro Approach

HH107-12 : TAWANDA LAMECK MUZONDA and TICHAONA MCDONALD MUZONDA AND THREE OTHERS vs LORRAINE USAYIWEVHU AND DEPUTY SHERIFF CHITUNGWIZA AND ONE OTHER
Ruled By: MUTEMA J

This is the first and final distribution account in terms of which the executor awarded the house to the applicants...the Master approved the account. Once the account was approved the executor became functus officio.
More

HH205-10 : AFRICA CONSOLIDATED RESOURCES (PVT) LIMITED AND FOUR OTHERS vs MINISTER OF MINES AND MINING DEVELOPMENT AND TWO OTHERS
Ruled By: HUNGWE J

Secondly, counsel for the applicants took the point that as this court had pronounced itself in the judgment of the 24th September 2009, this court was functus officio. The first issue to resolve is whether this court is properly seized with this matter. As I pointed out in my directive to the first respondent's legal practitioners, the allegation of ...
More

HH35-12 : DEBRAH GLORIA KOUMIDES vs PAUL KOUMIDES
Ruled By: GUVAVA J

Whilst it is accepted that this court has inherent jurisdiction under common law to supplement, clarify, or correct its own judgments, it can only do so in very limited circumstances. The rationale being that once a court has delivered a judgment it becomes functus officio. The authors HERBSTEIN and VAN WINSEN in...outline the circumstances in ...
More

HH157-12 : JOROME OKEKE vs CHIEF IMMIGRATION OFFICER
Ruled By: MTSHIYA J

The endorsement that the matter is not urgent reflects the prima facie view of the court on the papers without the benefit of oral argument from the parties. Until the matter has been fully argued orally and a determination made thereafter, His Lordship is not functus officio and he can hear oral argument on ...
More

HH113-09 : DIDYMUS MUTASA vs NGONI NDUNA N.O. and ATTORNEY-GENERAL and COMMISSIONER-GENERAL OF POLICE and ROBERT MCKERSIE
Ruled By: PATEL J

The applicant herein is the Minister of State responsible for Presidential Affairs. He was formerly the Minister responsible for Land Reform and Resettlement. The applicant originally sought an order, inter alia, staying and eventually setting aside the execution of a warrant of arrest issued against him on the 6th of ...
More

HB43-09 : THULANI NDLOVU vs SHEPERD MUKURUVA and GRACE MUGWAGWA and REGISTRAR OF DEEDS
Ruled By: NDOU J

The applicant and the second respondent only entered into their Agreement of Sale on 9 September 2003. The second respondent did not honour this Agreement as well, resulting in the applicant approaching this court in 2004. On 20 February 2004, he obtained a provisional order interdicting the second and third respondents from selling and transferring the property ...
More

HH105-10 : THE CHURCH OF THE PROVINCE OF CENTRAL AFRICA vs THE DIOCESAN TRUSTEES FOR THE DIOCESE OF HARARE
Ruled By: MAVANGIRA J

On 20 May, the respondent's legal practitioners raised preliminary points, the first of which was that this court is functus officio and cannot hear the matter as it had already made a final determination that the matter is not urgent and the determination had been communicated to the parties. Reference was made to Chirambasukwa v ...
More

HH232-10 : ANDREW RICHARD BRUFORD vs THE ATTORNEY GENERAL and THE MINISTER OF LANDS AND RURAL RESETTLEMENT and MAGISTRATE JARABINI and OTHERS
Ruled By: CHIWESHE JP

Counsel for the applicant argued that the magistrate had no jurisdiction to order execution pending appeal. She contended that the Magistrate Court Act [Chapter 7:10] was silent in granting criminal courts further jurisdiction to issue orders to suspend or execute pending appeal any judgment given under criminal law. Section 3(5) of the Gazetted Land (Consequential ...
More

View Appeal
HH233-10 : YAKUB SURTEE vs SHAUN EVANS and PAUL FRIENDSHIP and COLLIN MacMILLIAN and RODNEY FINNIGAN and ACROSS ENTERPRISES PL
Ruled By: MTSHIYA J

In this application, the applicant seeks the following relief:“1. The respondents be and are hereby held to be in contempt of this Honourable Court Order granted on 19 May 2009.2. The respondents be and are hereby incarcerated for a period of ninety (90) days each.3. Costs of this application shall ...
More

HH276-10 : DAVID CHIGODORA and NELIA CHIGODORA vs THOMAS C. T RODRIGUES and THOMAS C.T. RODRIGUES (N.O.) and THE REGISTRAR OF DEED and THE MASTER OF THE HIGH COURT and THE DEPUTY SHERIFF
Ruled By: MTSHIYA J

As I have already indicated, the intention to regularize did not constitute a formal decision on the part of the Master of the High Court, and, therefore, the issue of him being functus officio never arose.
More

HB51-10 : MORRIS CHINGUWA vs SIPHO NYONI and MAGISTRATE ZVISHAVANE and MR MUTSUNGUMA N.O. THE MESSENGER OF COURT/D/SHERIFF
Ruled By: MATHONSI J

It is clear that the procedure followed by the Magistrates' Court was irregular. From the time the judgment of the Chief's Court was confirmed by that court and a writ issued in favour of the applicant the same court became functus officio and could not lawfully reverse its own decision. In addition to that, the ...
More

HH110-13 : THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF ZIMBABWE vs ABEDINICO BHEBHE and NJABULISO MGUNI and NORMAN MPOFU
Ruled By: CHIWESHE JP

The respondents contend that the court has become functus officio. Whereas in the past the applicant has sought extensions within which to abide by the order, what is presently sought is a different relief which the court cannot entertain….,. The applicant avers that it is competent for the court to hear an applicant who seeks to have ...
More

HH56-14 : MABWE MINERALS ZIMBABWE PL vs CHIROSWA MINERALS PL and BASE MINERALS PL and ORBERT MPOFU (Minister of Mines) and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL N.O. and MRS E. KAHONDE N.O. (Mining Commissioner)
Ruled By: CHIGUMBA J

The parties appeared…, before me for oral argument, at the applicant's insistence, after I had initially indicated that the application did not meet the requirements of urgency. The letter from the applicant's legal practitioners, dated 21 August 2013, addressed to the Registrar, read in part, as follows: “We note that pursuant to perusing the urgent chamber ...
More

HH22-15 : MILTON MADYAUTA vs MAZVIONA MADZIVA
Ruled By: UCHENA J and MWAYERA J

The appellant and the respondent had a dispute over land which they took to Headman Ganje for determination. Headman Ganje presided over the same dispute twice giving two different judgments. He initially found in favour of the appellant, but, subsequently, found in favour of the respondent. The respondent was aggrieved by Headman Ganje's ...
More

HH631-15 : GOLDEN REEF MINING (PRIVATE) LIMITED and FERBIT INVESTMENTS (PRIVATE) LIMITED vs MNJIYA CONSULTING ENGINEERS (PTY) LIMITED and THE SHERIFF
Ruled By: MAFUSIRE J

The respondent's second point in limine was that this court was now functus officio. The argument was that the application before me was basically the same matter as determined by NDEWERE J before. It was said that the arguments proffered before NDEWERE J would be the same arguments to be proffered before me. The order ...
More

HH722-15 : GOLDEN REEF MINING (PRIVATE) LIMITED and FERBITT INVESTMENTS (PRIVATE) LIMITED vs MNJIYA CONSULTING ENGINEERS (PTY) LIMITED and THE SHERIFF-GWERU N.O. and THE SHERIFF-MT DARWIN N.O.
Ruled By: MANGOTA J

Whether or not the court is functus officio in regard to the present application does, by and large, depend on the circumstances of this case. The first respondent stated that, in dismissing the application for rescission of default judgement, the court pronounced itself on the point that the applicants were in wilful default. It submitted ...
More

SC32-18 : ZESA HOLDINGS (PRIVATE) LIMITED vs ITAYI UTAH
Ruled By: GWAUNZA JA, GUVAVA JA and MAVANGIRA JA

The learned authors, HERBSTEIN VAN WINSEN, 'The Civil Practice of the High Courts and the Supreme Court of Appeal of South Africa', 5th ed, state that: “The general principle, now well established in our law, is that once a court has duly pronounced a final judgment or order, it has itself no authority to correct, alter or ...
More

HH57-16 : MOSES PIKAI SHONIWA vs NYUKWA SHONIWA (NEE MAZENGEZA)
Ruled By: CHITAPI J

I was faced with a situation in which I was functus officio but at the same time having power to use the provisions of Rule 449 to revisit my order. However, the powers provided to the court or judge under Rule 449 are exercisable on application.The Rule refers to an ...
More

HH343-15 : SOURCE-NET (PVT) LTD and NELSON BANYA and ALFONCE MBIZWO and BERNARD MPOFU vs STEWARD BANK LIMITED and ECONET WIRELESS
Ruled By: MUSAKWA J

When the matter was set down for hearing, the Registrar erroneously notified the present applicants. Nonetheless, they were not served with the application itself. It turned out that they attended at the High Court after the matter had been disposed of and after the other parties had already left. They sought audience notwithstanding that I was ...
More

HB160-16 : VICTORIA FALLS MUNICIPALITY vs S. C MUTARE N.O and DICKSON MUKOMBWE AND 16 OTHERS
Ruled By: MATHONSI J

The arbitrator who has made an award is functus officio and cannot entertain the same matter again….,.
More

HH151-15 : CMED (PRIVATE) LIMITED vs KENNETH MAPHOSA and SHERIFF OF ZIMBABWE N.O. and ZIMBABWE REVENUE AUTHORITY
Ruled By: CHIGUMBA J

In the case of Church of the Province of Central Africa v Diocesan Trustees, Diocese of Harare 2010 (1) ZLR 346…, where this court said the following: “…., while normally a court does not have jurisdiction to interfere with its own judgments because, in relation thereto, it is functus officio, it does have such jurisdiction over orders made ...
More

HMA01-18 : MAIN ROAD MOTORS and SYLVIA CHORUWA and PATRICK MUGUTI vs ZIMBABWE REVENUE AUTHORITY and MINISTER OF FINANCE & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT and ATTORNEY GENERAL
Ruled By: MAFUSIRE J

The applicants also argued that once a Zimbabwe Revenue Authority (ZIMRA) officer has assessed the duty on imported goods; has received the duty paid by the importer; and has cleared the goods, he becomes functus officio and cannot go back to his decision to review it again….,. Section 192(1) of the Customs and Excise Act [Chapter 23:02] reads: “192 Embargo on ...
More

SC48-19 : JACOB BETHEL CORPORATION vs EMMANUEL CHIKUYA
Ruled By: MAKARAU JA, GOWORA JA and BERE JA

Whilst the court a quo did not articulate the reason why it believed that the judgment by the Appeal Court was not binding on it, the argument was advanced, on appeal, and on behalf of the respondent, that both courts enjoyed parallel jurisdiction and therefore the previous decision of one was not binding on the ...
More

HH197-15 : ROBSON MAKONI vs THE COLD CHAIN (PRIVATE) LIMITED t/a SEA HARVEST
Ruled By: CHIGUMBA J

Should our courts be courts of law or courts of justice? One would pre-suppose that the law is justice and that justice is the law. To the ordinary man, i.e. one who is un-tutored in the practice of the law and the pursuit of justice, it would appear that law and justice have a symbiotic relationship; ...
More

HH197-15 : ROBSON MAKONI vs THE COLD CHAIN (PRIVATE) LIMITED t/a SEA HARVEST
Ruled By: CHIGUMBA J

The law that underlies the legal principle of functus officio was summarized in the case of Firestone South Africa (Pty) Ltd v Genticuro 1977 (4) SA 298 (A)…, as follows: “The general principle, now well established in our law, is that once a court has duly pronounced a final judgment or order, it has itself no authority to correct, alter, or ...
More

SC57-19 : THE COLD CHAIN (PRIVATE) LIMITED t/a SEA HARVEST vs ROBSON MAKONI
Ruled By: GOWORA JA, HLATSHWAYO JA and MAVANGIRA JA

On 21 December 1999 at the 12km peg along the Rusape to Nyanga road a horrific collision involving the respondent and an employee of the appellant occurred. The former sustained frightful injuries. Sadly, the appellant's employee succumbed to injuries occasioned from the collision. The following facts are common cause. The respondent sued for and was awarded damages by the ...
More

HH517-15 : CHEN WANG vs JOSEPH MANDIZHA and TAWANDA MAVHUNGA and TAFADZWA MAVHUNGA and DARNEL ENTERPRISES (PRIVATE) LIMITED
Ruled By: MUREMBA J

The applicant's application is for rescission of a default judgment which was granted by MANGOTA J on 4 February 2015 in chambers. The application is being made in terms of Rule 449 although on the face of the application the applicant indicated that the application was being made in terms of Rule 249. Rule 249 ...