Law Portal
Zimbabwe

Welcome To Law Portal

Welcome, Guest!
[Help?]

Urgency re: Certificate of Urgency

HH19-07 : PONDORO (PVT) LTD and DOUGLAS TAYLOR-FREME vs MENDE NEMAKONDE and THE MAGISTRATE, CHINHOYI
Ruled By: HUNGWE J

This matter was placed before me under a certificate of urgency on 17 January 2008. I gave directions that it be heard the following day as I deemed it appropriate that the Rules of Court be dispensed with in the interests of achieving justice in this particular matter.At the hearing, ...
More

Appealed
HH108-12 : OLIVER CHIDAWU and BROADWAY INVESTMENTS and DANOCT INVESTMENTS and DANNOV INVESTMENTS vs JAYESH SHAH and TN ASSET MANAGEMENT and ISB SECURITIES and ZIMBABWE STOCK EXCHANGE and CORPSERVE
Ruled By: UCHENA J

Counsel for the first respondent and counsel for the second and third respondents raised preliminary issues on the validity of the applicant's certificate of urgency, and absence of urgency. They submitted that the certificate of urgency was not the product of the deponent's independent opinion based on her personal and honest opinion on the urgency ...
More

HH111-12 : DARLINGTON SIREWU vs WAYNE (GALLOP) SWALES AND ANOTHER
Ruled By: CHIWESHE JP

The applicant is a self-actor. He filed under his own hand a certificate of urgency in his own case. In terms of the Rules, only a legal practitioner, by virtue of his position as an officer of this court, is competent to issue a certificate of urgency in a matter in which he has ...
More

HH37-09 : CENTRAL AFRICAN BUILDING CONSTRUCTION COMPANY (PVT) LTD vs CONSTRUCTION RESOURCES AFRICA (PVT) LTD AND THREE OTHERS
Ruled By: CHATUKUTA J

Two points have been raised in limine. The first point is that the matter is not urgent. It appears to me that this application can be disposed of by the determination of the first point. The respondents contend that the matter is not urgent. Counsel for the respondents submitted that the certificate of urgency does not disclose the ...
More

HH27-10 : ROUTE TOUTE BV and PENINSULAR PLANTATIONS (PVT) LTD and MATANUSKA (PVT) LTD and BRIGHTSIDE FARM (PVT) LTD vs SUSNSPUN BANANAS (PVT) LTD and AMBASSADOR-MAJOR GENERAL CHIMONYO
Ruled By: CHATUKUTA J

Counsel for the second respondent raised three points in limine on behalf of the second respondent. The first point was that the certificate of urgency is not proper as it was signed by a legal practitioner from the same firm as that representing the applicants. The impropriety of the certificate would therefore render the application ...
More

HH34-10 : CHIRIGA ESTATES (PVT) LTD and MILRITE FARMING (PVT) LTD and SILVERTON ESTATES (PVT) LTD vs MINISTER OF LANDS AND RURAL RESETTLEMENT and MR E. PORUSINGAZI and EIGHT OTHERS
Ruled By: MUSAKWA J

The certificate of urgency in the present application was prepared by Mr. Drury. Mr. Drury also deposed to the founding affidavit. In my view, this is undesirable.
More

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

The third point raised by counsel for the respondent was that the certificate of urgency accompanying the application is defective and therefore invalid. Counsel for the respondent cited several errors in the certificate as a basis for attacking the validity of the certificate. In essence, his contention was that the legal practitioner who signed the ...
More

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

The certificate of urgency is irregular in that it is signed by the same legal practitioner who prepared the application. On numerous occasions, this court has held that a legal practitioner who prepares the papers cannot be the same legal practitioner who certifies the urgency of the matter.
More

View Appeal
SC12-13 : OLIVER CHIDAWU and BROADWAY INVESTMENTS and DANOCT INVESTMENTS and DANNOV INVESTMENTS vs JAYESH SHAH and TN ASSET MANAGEMENT and ISB SECURITIES and ZIMBABWE STOCK EXCHANGE and CONSERVE
Ruled By: MALABA DCJ, GOWORA JA and OMERJEE AJA

This is an appeal against the judgment of the High Court dismissing an urgent application made by the appellants. The first appellant, (hereinafter referred to as Chidawu), is the beneficial holder of all the shares in the rest of the appellants (hereinafter referred to as the appellant companies). In turn, the appellant companies owned, cumulatively, in excess ...
More

HH190-10 : NGONI MUDEKUNYE and GLADYS CHAMUTSA and MASIMBA MUDEKUNYE and TAMBURIKA MUDEKUNYE vs AARON EVANS MUDEKUNYE and BERTHA MUDEKUNYE and DEPUTY SHERIFF CHIPINGE N.O.
Ruled By: BERE J

In the urgent application before me the respondents' counsel..., raised basically two points in limine which he argued were capable of resolving the issues before going into the merits of this matter. Counsel for the respondents' first contention was that it was not competent for a Mr. Itai Ndudzo, a practicing lawyer with Messrs. Mutamangira ...
More

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

At the hearing of this application counsel for the first respondent raised three points in limine. I propose to deal with these points in limine first. Points in limine Counsel for the first respondent raised the point that the certificate of urgency filed of record and attested to by a legal practitioner, Mr. Wellington Thomas Pasipanodya, of ...
More

HH198-10 : BIRCH WILLIAMS vs MARIA KATSANDE and DELITTE PRODUCTS (PRIVATE) LIMITED
Ruled By: MAWADZE J

The applicant seeks a provisional order in the following terms:-“Terms of the provisional order granted1. Respondents be and are hereby ordered to forthwith hand over a property listed in Annexture 'B' to the founding affidavit to the applicant upon service of this order.1(a) In the event of the respondents refusing ...
More

HH19-11 : JAMESON RUSHWAYA and ANNIE RUSHWAYA vs PATTERSON TIMBA and SWIMMING POOL & UNDER WATER REPAIRS PL and TOLROSE INVESTMENTS PL and MESSENGER OF COURT, KADOMA
Ruled By: MAVANGIRA J

This is an urgent chamber application in which the applicants seek a Provisional Order in the following terms:“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 first, second, and fourth respondents and/or their agents ...
More

HH208-10 : MIKE CHIVHANGANYE and OLIVIA CHIVHANGANYE vs OACRIDGE PROPERTIES (PVT) LTD and THE HONOURABLE MAGISTRATE CHIBANDA (N.O.)
Ruled By: MUTEMA J

The bare bones of the matter that could be gleaned from the first respondent's opposing papers are that the applicants were the registered owners of 10 Gayton Avenue, Sunridge, Harare. On 24 October 2009, following the sale of the house for US$21,000= the applicants transferred title to the first respondent in terms of Deed of ...
More

HB73-10 : THABANI MOYO and ALEXANDER MUNYAKA vs HASSBRO PROPERTIES (PVT) LTD and MESSENGER OF COURT
Ruled By: MATHONSI J

Legal practitioners, as officers of the court, are required by the rules to certify a matter urgent after applying their own mind and judgment to the circumstances of the matter. Having done so, they must reach a personal view which they pass to a judge in their honour and name that the matter is urgent; ...
More

HH351-13 : SOVEREIGN EMPOWERMENT CENTRE and HACHIM KITCHENS PL and KINGDOM EMBASSY ZIM and STUARTSON INVESTMENTS PL vs OLD MUTUAL INVESTMENT GROUP PROPERTY INVESTMENT ZIM PL and THE SHERIFF (N.O.)
Ruled By: MANGOTA J

It is pertinent that the court examines this matter in the order in which papers were filed with it. The first set of papers which the court received are the four applications. These are the foundation of the present proceedings. Two questions stand out to be dispassionately considered and resolved insofar as this matter ...
More

HH351-13 : SOVEREIGN EMPOWERMENT CENTRE and HACHIM KITCHENS PL and KINGDOM EMBASSY ZIM and STUARTSON INVESTMENTS PL vs OLD MUTUAL INVESTMENT GROUP PROPERTY INVESTMENT ZIM PL and THE SHERIFF (N.O.)
Ruled By: MANGOTA J

The court further noted and mentions, in passing, that the certificate of urgency which relates to the chamber urgent counter-applications was not signed by its author. One Takunda Emmanuel Gumbo prepared the certificate. His law firm signed it. That certificate is, accordingly, defective at law.
More

HH366-13 : MURENGA CHIKWAMBA vs MATIUS MUKUNGA and LAZARUS MUKUNGA and MINISTER OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT PUBLIC WORKS AND URBAN DEVELOPMEMNT and DISTRICT ADMINISTRATOR SHAMVA
Ruled By: MATHONSI J

Counsel for the third and fourth respondents took two (2) points in limine, firstly, challenging the certificate of urgency on the basis that it is signed by a legal practitioner from the law firm representing the applicant. She relied on the case of Chafanza v Edgars Stores Ltd Anor HB27-05. I am aware of the ...
More

HB17-11 : JONATHAN M. GAPARE and TLP AGENCIES (PVT) LTD t/a ALPHA PROPERTIES DEVELOPERS vs FARAI MUSHIPE and THE DEPUTY SHERIFF, BULAWAYO
Ruled By: MATHONSI J

In this case, the first respondent instituted summons action against the applicants on 13 November 2009 under case no. HC1861/09 seeking to compel them to construct a 4-roomed house for him in terms of an agreement the parties allegedly entered into, or, alternatively, payment of US$13,250= being the estimated value of such property. The ...
More

HH87-14 : MUTUMWA MAWERE and SMM HOLDINGS LTD and THZ HOLDINGS LTD and AFRICA RESOURCES LTD vs MINISTER OF MINES AND MINING DEVELOPMENT and ZIMBABWE MINING DEVELOPMENT CORP and AFARAS GWARADZIMBA
Ruled By: MANGOTA J

On 13 February 2014, the applicants filed an application with this court. The application was filed under case number HC1188/14. On 14 February 2014, the applicants filed the present application with the court on an urgent basis. The application was filed under case number HC1248/14. I will, for purposes of clarity, refer to the application ...
More

HH571-14 : CFI HOLDINGS LTD vs FIDELITY LIFE ASSURANCE OF ZIMBABWE LIMITED
Ruled By: MATANDA-MOYO J

The respondent also took issue with the certificate of urgency which it submitted was defective. The respondent is of the view that the certificate of urgency addressed legal argument rather than explain the basis upon which the legal practitioners is of the view that the matter is urgent. A look at the applicant's certificate of urgency leaves ...
More

HB122-14 : GAMANGE (PVT) LTD vs SMELLY DUBE and LIMUKANI SIBANDA and MINISTER OF LANDS & RURAL RESETTLEMENT and OTHERS
Ruled By: TAKUVA J

The first point taken was that the certificate of urgency was invalid for the reason that the legal practitioner who prepared the certificate simply copied almost all the paragraphs relating to urgency from the founding affidavit. In my view, this point in limine is without merit in that a legal practitioner has confirmed that she has ...
More

HH11-15 : RM MINING AND INDUSTRIAL ZIMBABWE (PRIVATE) LIMITED vs STANBIC BANK ZIMBABWE LIMITED
Ruled By: MAFUSIRE J

In General Transport Engineering (Pvt) Ltd Ors v Zimbabwe Banking Corporation Ltd 1998 (2) ZLR 301 (HC), it was held that the reason behind the certificate of urgency is that the court is only prepared to act urgently in a matter where a legal practitioner is involved and has given ...
More

HMA13-17 : COMMERCIAL SUGAR CANE FARMERS ASSOCIATION and ZIMBABWE CANE FARMERS ASSOCIATION and OTHERS vs THE MINISTER OF INDUSTRY AND COMMERCE and TRIANGLE LIMITED and HIPPO VALLEY ESTATES (PVT) LTD
Ruled By: MAWADZE J

The basis of the point in limine in respect of the certificate of urgency is that Mr Frank Chirairo certified this matter as urgent on 18 January 2017 when in fact the founding affidavits by the applicants were commissioned on 19 January 2017. This would mean that when Mr Frank Chirairo certified the matter ...
More

HMA17-17 : MAIN ROAD MOTORS (Case 1) and SYLVIA CHORUWA (Case 2) vs COMMISSIONER – GENERAL, ZIMRA
Ruled By: MAFUSIRE J

During the hearing, I drew attention to the applicants' certificates of urgency. There is a plethora of authorities to the effect that in urgent chamber applications, the legal practitioner certifying the matter as urgent, must, at the very least, state why, in his or her opinion, it should be treated as urgent. In UZ–UCSF Collaborative ...
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

The first respondent's second in limine matter related to the certificate of urgency. It stated that the legal practitioner who prepared the certificate appeared to have entertained the view that the applicants were confident that the Supreme Court would rule in their favour. It submitted that the legal practitioner did not appear to share ...
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

A legal practitioner who is requested to certify an application as urgent should verify the averments made by the applicant. The averments made by Peter Matsanura are speculative as they are a mere rehash of the averments made in the founding affidavit….,. It looks like Peter Matsanura refrained from verifying what actually transpired and this must be ...
More

HH173-11 : PROGRESSIVE TEACHERS UNION OF ZIMBABWE and OTHERS vs ZIMBABWE CONGRESS OF TRADE UNIONS and OTHERS
Ruled By: MAVANGIRA J

It is apposite…, to indicate that the urgent chamber application and the certificate of urgency, which are almost identical in content, only deal, in paragraph 13, which is the final paragraph in both, with the issue of urgency. The paragraph reads: “The matter is urgent because the day on which this illegality will be given effect to ...
More

HB146-16 : ADMIRE MAHACHI and NYARAI MPOFU and EMMANUEL MUGUTO and KNOWLEDGE SHAMHU vs OFFICER COMMANDING MATABELELAND SOUTH PROVINCE, N.O and COMMISSIONER GENERAL OF POLICE N.O.
Ruled By: MOYO J

I noted, at the time I attended to the application, that whilst it was filed as an urgent application by a firm of lawyers representing the applicants, it was not certified as urgent. A blank certificate of urgency was attached to the application. It was therefore not certified as urgent. I noted though, that at the ...
More

HH128-15 : KUKURA KURERWA BUS COMPANY (PVT) LTD vs JAPHET LUNGA and 55 OTHERS and ADDITIONAL SHERIFF
Ruled By: MANGOTA J

CERTIFICATE OF URGENCY The certificate appears at page 6 of the record. It was brief and did not contain sufficient particulars which would have enabled the court to make an informed decision of the urgency or otherwise of the application. Paragraph 2 of the certificate reads:- “The second respondent, acting on the instructions of the 1st respondent, has attached and ...
More

HH141-15 : GOODWELL CHIPURIRO vs CITY OF HARARE
Ruled By: UCHENA J

Counsel for the respondent raised preliminary issues on the certification of urgency by the applicant's law firm and lack of urgency. He submitted that a legal practitioner should not certify a case as urgent if it is being handled by his law firm….,. Counsel for the applicant submitted that the issue of certification of certificates of urgency ...
More

HB233-16 : DOUGLAS NDLOVU vs THABO MASUKU
Ruled By: TAKUVA J

The fact of urgency must appear from the founding affidavit, and where no such averment is made in that affidavit, there will be no legal basis for a legal practitioner to issue a certificate of urgency as that certificate is, in turn, based on the founding affidavit. Logically, if there is no valid certificate of ...
More

CC07-14 : MAYOR LOGISTICS (PVT) LTD vs ZIMBABWE REVENUE AUTHORITY
Ruled By: MALABA DCJ

A party seeking to be accorded the preferential treatment must set out, in the founding affidavit, facts that distinguish the case from others to justify the granting of the order for urgent hearing…,. The certificate of urgency should show that the legal practitioner carefully examined the founding affidavit and documents filed in support of the urgent application ...
More

HH635-14 : ECONET WIRELESS vs POSTAL AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS REGULATORY AUTHORITY OF ZIMBABWE (POTRAZ)
Ruled By: DUBE J

The respondent also took issue with the certificate of urgency. It submitted that the certificate of urgency in support of this application is no certificate at all as it was done before the founding affidavit had been deposed and attested to. The respondent further averred that the founding affidavit does not disclose urgency....,. The applicant contends that both ...
More

HH156-15 : MICHAEL MUPFUMIRA vs DELTA BERVERAGES (PVT) LTD and PASSION AND DREAMS (PVT) LTD
Ruled By: TAGU J

Even if I may be wrong in declaring this matter not urgent, the respondent's submissions in respect of the second point in limine appears to me to be valid. The certificate of urgency was signed by one Rosewitter Madembo of Messrs Govere Law Chambers. The same Rosewitter Madembo commissioned the applicant's founding affidavit in an application for rescission ...
More

HMA12-18 : CONSTABLE CHIHWAI vs BOARD PRESIDENT N.O., CHIEF SUPERINTENDENT NYATHI M and COMMISSIONER GENERAL OF POLICE
Ruled By: MAFUSIRE J

The certificate of urgency accompanying the application is defective. There is a plethora of cases on what a certificate of urgency is, and what it ought to contain. For example, the legal practitioner certifying the matter as urgent, must, at the very least, state why, in his or her opinion, it should be treated as ...
More

HH260-14 : UZ – UCSF COLLABORATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAMME vs ISDORE HUSAIWEVHU and WALTER MUTOWO and FUNGAI ZINYAMA and THE SHERIFF FOR ZIMBABWE
Ruled By: MAFUSIRE J

The respondents' first point in limine was that the certificate of urgency that had been filed in accordance with Order 32 Rule 244 of the rules of this court had been defective, invalid, and, therefore, inadmissible. It was alleged that the legal practitioner who had certified the matter as being urgent had not personally applied her mind ...
More

HMA13-18 : JONATHAN CHIKUKWA vs BEAUTY and GAME DOLLAR
Ruled By: MAWADZE J

The papers include, inter alia, what is called “an affidavit of urgency” duly commissioned. This should be in lieu of a certificate of urgency not required for a self actor.
More

HMA36-18 : AMALGAMATED RURAL TEACHERS UNION OF ZIMBABWE vs OBERT MASARAURE and ZIMBABWE AFRICAN NATIONAL UNION [PATRIOTIC FRONT] and MINISTER OF PRIMARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION
Ruled By: MAFUSIRE J

The first respondent's second ground of objection was that the certificate of urgency was palpably defective in that it was bereft of essential averments and replete with typographical errors. A certificate of urgency is the sine quo non for an application being heard on an urgent basis: see General Transport Engineering [Pvt] Ltd ...
More

HH229-15 : IZAYI PARK HOUSING SCHEME (represented by ELINAS GUMBO) vs SHADRECK GWENA and OTHERS
Ruled By: TAGU J

The applicant seeks a spoliation order against all the 18 respondents on the following terms:“A. TERMS OF THE FINAL ORDER SOUGHTIt is ordered that:(1) The Respondents are interdicted from interfering with the Applicant's project and business in whatever manner.(2) The Respondents' behaviour and conduct is hereby declared wrongful and unlawful.(3) ...
More

HH258-15 : TETRAD HOLDINGS LIMITED and OTHERS vs NATIONAL SOCIAL SECURITY AUTHORITY and THE SHERIFF FOR ZIMBABWE N.O.
Ruled By: MAFUSIRE J

This was an urgent chamber application for a stay of execution.It was filed on 6 March 2015. It was brought to my chambers at 17:15 hours three days later, i.e. on 9 March 2015. There were eleven applicants. Their case was that on 6 March 2015, i.e. the date the ...
More

HH318-15 : DAVID JACK and OTHERS vs LLOYD MUSHIPE (in his capacity as joint executor of Estate Late Keresia Jack) and OTHERS
Ruled By: CHITAKUNYE J

The applicants (David Jack, Theresia Jack and Theresa Jack) and the first to fourth respondents (Lloyd Mushipe, Simbarashe Mushipe, Jesca Mushipe and Keresia Mushipe) are children of the late Keresia Jack who died intestate on 15 March 1997. The late Keresia Jack's estate comprises an immovable property, namely, House ...
More

HH477-16 : RICHARD SEAGER vs ALESTER ZIYANGA
Ruled By: DUBE J

The applicant applies for an anti-dissipation order to restrain the respondent from removing and disposing of joint venture farm equipment owned by a partnership pending his claim.The circumstances surrounding this application are as follows:The applicant was the owner of UNA Farm, Wedza. The farm was subsequently offered to the respondent ...