CHIWESHE
JP: At the hearing of this opposed matter
a point in limine was raised, namely
that the matter had, by order of this court under case number HC 1920/08, been
dismissed for want of prosecution. The
order given by my brother Omerjee J on 19 May 2008 reads:
“IT
IS ORDERED THAT:
1.
Respondent be and is hereby ordered to file a Chamber Application
for edictal citation within 14 days of service of order upon first respondent.
2.
Should the respondent fail to comply with the directive
in 1 above the applications made under case number HC 7410/06 and 6937/06 shall
on the 15th day be dismissed for want of prosecution.”
The applicant in
this matter was the respondent referred to in that order.
This order was not complied with and
consequently the present application was dismissed, in terms of that order, for
want of prosecution. No application for
reinstatement has been filed and until that is done and an order to that effect
granted, the application cannot be entertained.
Mr
Mukwachari for the applicant made an
application for the postponement of the hearing to enable him to take
instructions on this point in limine. No tangible reasons were given as to why
those instructions had not been taken prior to the hearing and moreso as
Omerjee J's order was made as far back as May 2008. Needless to say I refused the application and
ordered as follows:
- The application to postpone the matter be and is
hereby dismissed.
- The matter be and is hereby struck off the roll.
- The applicant is to pay the wasted costs.
T.H. Chitapi & Associates, applicant's legal practitioners
Messrs Uriri
Attorneys-At-Law, respondent's legal practitioners
