Jurisdiction http://zimlii.org/ en Mamombe and Another v Mushure N.O and Another (4 of 2022) [2022] ZWCC 4 (10 June 2022); http://zimlii.org/zw/judgment/constitutional-court-zimbabwe/2022/4 <span class="field field--name-title field--type-string field--label-hidden">Mamombe and Another v Mushure N.O and Another (4 of 2022) [2022] ZWCC 4 (10 June 2022);</span> <div class="field field--name-field-flynote field--type-entity-reference field--label-above"> <div class="field__label">Flynote</div> <div class='field__items'> <div class="field__item"><a href="/taxonomy/term/1500" hreflang="en">Motion to Stay Proceedings</a></div> <div class="field__item"><a href="/taxonomy/term/1566" hreflang="en">Jurisdiction</a></div> <div class="field__item"><a href="/taxonomy/term/1658" hreflang="en">Stay of Proceedings</a></div> <div class="field__item"><a href="/taxonomy/term/2269" hreflang="x-default">Urgent Application</a></div> </div> </div> <span class="field field--name-uid field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden"><span>Sandra Muengwa</span></span> <span class="field field--name-created field--type-created field--label-hidden">Mon, 06/13/2022 - 08:41</span> <div class="field field--name-field-files field--type-file field--label-above"> <div class="field__label">Download</div> <div class='field__items'> <div class="field__item"> <span class="file file--mime-application-vnd-openxmlformats-officedocument-wordprocessingml-document file--x-office-document"> <a href="https://media.zimlii.org/files/judgments/zwcc/2022/4/2022-zwcc-4.docx" type="application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document; length=35765">2022-zwcc-4.docx</a></span> </div> <div class="field__item"> <span class="file file--mime-application-pdf file--application-pdf"> <a href="https://media.zimlii.org/files/judgments/zwcc/2022/4/2022-zwcc-4.pdf" type="application/pdf; length=476878">2022-zwcc-4.pdf</a></span> </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-body field--type-text-with-summary field--label-hidden field__item"><p align="right" style="text-align:right"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Judgment No. CCZ 4/22</span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p align="right" style="text-align:right"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Constitutional Application No. CCZ 29/22</span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><u><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">DISTRIBUTABLE:</span></span></span></u></b><b><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">       (4)</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p align="center" style="text-align:center"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[1]     JOANAH     MAMOMBE     [2]     CECILIA     REVAI     CHIMBIRU</span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p align="center" style="text-align:center"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">v</span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p align="center" style="text-align:center"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[1]     FAITH     MUSHURE     N.O.     [2]     THE     STATE</span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF ZIMBABWE</span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">MAKARAU JCC</span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">HARARE: 27 APRIL &amp; 10 JUNE 2022</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">URGENT CHAMBER APPLICATION</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">E. Mubaiwa </span></span></span></i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">and<i> A Muchadehama,</i> for applicants</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">F.I. Nyahunzvi</span></span></span></i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"> and <i>T Mapfuwa,</i> for second respondent</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:2.0cm"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">MAKARAU JCC: </span></span></span></b><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">This is an urgent application for an order staying certain unterminated criminal proceedings against the applicants. The proceedings are underway before the first respondent, a Regional Magistrate. The applicants seek to stay the proceedings pending determination of two applications that they filed with this Court for direct access. If successful in the applications for direct access, the applicants intend to file an application in terms of s 85(1) of the Constitution, allegedly for the enforcement of their fundamental rights and or freedoms. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Background</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:2.0cm"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">As stated above, the applicants are jointly appearing before the first respondent.  They stand accused of publishing or communicating false statements that are prejudicial to the State in contravention of s 31(a) (i) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [<i>Chapter 9.23</i>].  The charge has two other alternatives whose particulars are not material in the determination of this application. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:2.0cm"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:2.0cm"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">At the commencement of their trial, the applicants requested that certain constitutional questions be referred to this Court in terms of s 175(4) of the Constitution. The request was dismissed and the trial of the matter commenced. In dismissing the request, the first respondent formed the view that the request was not <i>bona fide</i> but was generally marked by a lack of seriousness.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:2.0cm"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:2.0cm"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Dissatisfied with the refusal of their request, the applicants filed two applications to this Court seeking the leave of the court to approach it directly. In these applications, filed on 12 April 2022, the applicants contend in the main that the refusal of their request by the first respondent to refer the matter to this Court violates their rights to protection of the law. Arguing that they have no alternative remedy to approaching this Court directly, the applicants further contend that it is in the interests of justice that this Court considers the questions that they had requested the first respondent to refer to this Court.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:2.0cm"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:2.0cm"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">In the request for referral, the applicants had raised the constitutionality of s 31(a)(i) and (iii) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [<i>Chapter 9.23</i>], under which they are being charged and tried. They also sought to challenge the admissibility as evidence against them of the statements that they had given to the police at some stage during the investigation of the matter. They alleged that such statements were forcefully extracted from them. They further contended that their trial has received wide adverse media coverage which has compromised their rights to a fair trial.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:2.0cm"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:2.0cm"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">On 26 April 2022, the applicants filed this urgent application in which as stated above, they seek an order staying the criminal proceedings against them before the first respondent, pending determination of the applications for direct access.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:2.0cm"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:2.0cm"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The applicants have not simultaneously with, or alternatively to the urgent application before me, filed an application seeking directions that the applications for direct access be heard urgently or that such be summarily disposed of in terms of r 21 of the Constitutional Court Rules. They appear content to simply apply for a stay of the ongoing proceedings before the first respondent pending determination of their applications for direct access. This manner of proceeding has, and deservedly so, given rise to the perception and argument by the second respondent that the applicants are merely bent on delaying the finalisation of the criminal trial that is before the first respondent.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:2.0cm"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:2.0cm"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The urgent application was opposed by the second respondent.  As a preliminary point, the respondent argued that an application to postpone the hearing of the matter could have been made before the trial court under ss 165 and 166 of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act [<i>Chapter 9.07</i>].  Regarding the merits of the application, the second respondent argued that the inherent jurisdiction conferred upon this Court to regulate its own processes does not entail a power to regulate the criminal proceedings before the first respondent. In the final analysis, the respondent argued that the matter is not urgent.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:2.0cm"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:2.0cm"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">At the hearing of the application, I requested the parties to address me on whether this Court has jurisdiction to grant the relief that the applicants are seeking.   This was so because in my view, the preliminary issue that falls for determination in this application is whether this Court, before it determines the applications for direct access, has the requisite jurisdiction to interfere with the unterminated proceedings before the first respondent. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The law</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:2.0cm"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">In a long line of cases from this jurisdiction and elsewhere, the admonition is repeatedly sounded and explained, that superior courts should be very slow in interfering with the unterminated proceedings of lower courts. The exception is made for cases where there is a gross irregularity or a wrong decision by the lower court that will seriously prejudice the rights of a litigant or accused person and which irregularity or wrong decision cannot be corrected by any other means. (See <i>Attorney- General v Makamba</i>  2005 (2) ZLR 54 (S); <i>Rasher v Minister of Justice</i> 1930 TPD 810; <i>Ginsberg v Additional Magistrate of Cape Town </i>1933 CPD 357;  <i>Walhaus v Additional Magistrate, Johanesburg &amp; Anor </i>1959 (3) SA 113 (A);  <i>Masedza &amp; Others v Magistrate, Rusape and Others</i> 1998 (1) ZLR 36 (H); <i>Mantzaris v University of Durban -Westville &amp;Others</i> (2000) 10 BLLR 1203 LC;   <i>Rose v S</i> HH71/2002; <i>Mutumwa and Anor</i> v S HH104/2008,; <i>Chikusvu v Magistrate, Mahwe</i> HH100/2015; <i>Chawira and Others v Minister, Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs and Ors</i> CCZ3/17 and <i>Shava v Magomere</i> HB 100/17).</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:2.0cm"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:2.0cm"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The above admonition is sounded to a superior court that has inherent or legislatively-conferred review powers over the proceedings or decisions of the lower court. It is meant to guide the approach to be taken by such a court. This is so because the power to interfere with the unterminated proceedings of a lower court either permanently or as affording interlocutory relief, is nothing but an exercise of review jurisdiction by the superior court over the proceedings or decisions of the lower court. The authorities clearly establish the position at law that proceedings in a lower court or its decision are only interfered with if there is a gross irregularity in the proceedings or the interlocutory decision is clearly wrong. Both instances respectively encompass the common law review grounds of gross irregularity in the proceedings and/or gross unreasonableness in the decision.  By established practice of the courts, it is thus accepted that the existence of these two grounds of review may, in appropriate circumstances, justify a superior court of competent jurisdiction interfering with the ongoing proceedings of a lower court.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:2.0cm"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:2.0cm"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">This Court decides only constitutional matters and issues connected with decisions on constitutional matters. It is not a court of inherent jurisdiction and thus lacks inherent review powers over lower courts.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:2.0cm"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:2.0cm"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The Court however has legislatively-conferred review powers. These are set out in s 19 of the Constitutional Court Act [<i>Chapter 7.22</i>]. Whilst fairly wide, the review powers of this Court are correspondingly and in conformity with the Constitution, limited in scope to constitutional matters only. Section 19 of the Constitutional Court Act thus provides:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="Default" style="text-align:justify; text-indent:1.0cm"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black"><b>“19 Review Powers </b></span></span></span></p> <p class="Default" style="margin-left:85px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-35.45pt"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black">(1)       Subject to this section, the court and every Judge shall have, <b>in constitutional matters</b>, the power to review the proceedings and decisions of the Supreme Court, the High Court and all other subordinate courts, tribunals and administrative authorities. </span></span></span></p> <p class="Default" style="margin-left:85px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-35.45pt"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black">(2)       The power, jurisdiction and authority conferred by subs (1) may be exercised whenever it comes to the notice of the court or a Judge that an irregularity has occurred in any proceedings or in the making of any decision, notwithstanding that such proceedings are, or such decision is, not the subject of an appeal or application to the court. </span></span></span></p> <p class="Default" style="margin-left:85px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-35.45pt"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black">(3)       Nothing in this section shall be construed as conferring upon any person any right to institute any review in the first instance before the court or a Judge, and provision may be made in rules of court, and a Judge may give directions, specifying that any class of review or any particular review shall be instituted before, or shall be referred or remitted to the Supreme Court, the High Court or the Labour Court, as the case may be, for determination.” (The emphasis is mine.)</span></span></span></p> <p class="Default" style="margin-left:85px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-35.45pt"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:2.0cm"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">If it is accepted, which it must, that this Court lacks inherent jurisdiction to review the proceedings and decisions of lower courts in non-constitutional matters, it stands to reason that this Court must be dead slow in interfering with the unterminated proceedings of any lower court and proceed only after it is satisfied that there is a constitutional matter arising in the matter. Put differently, the review jurisdiction of this Court is only triggered and engaged after this Court has satisfied itself that the matter involved is a constitutional matter. I venture to suggest that where the matter is intended to be brought before this Court as a court of first instance, as in <i>casu</i>, this Court must only proceed to interfere with the unterminated proceedings of a lower court where it intends, in the interests of justice, to grant direct access in the matter and determine the matter itself. Put differently, this Court must only interfere with unterminated proceedings in the lower courts where it has jurisdiction in the matter. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:38px; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.0cm"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:2.0cm"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">If it were to proceed in any other manner, this Court would run the risk of rushing in and interfering with unterminated proceedings in a lower court that on final analysis turn out to have been on a non-constitutional matter. In such an instance, the interference by this Court would lack legitimacy as having been made in breach of the Constitution that confines the jurisdiction of this Court only to constitutional matters and decisions in issues involving a constitutional matter.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Analysis</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:2.0cm"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">In this application, it is common cause that the applicants have filed two applications for direct access. The applications are yet to be determined. This in turn means that this Court has not yet determined that the two applications raise constitutional matters that will engage its jurisdiction.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:2.0cm"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The submission was made by <i>Mr Mubaiwa</i> that the urgent application before me seeks to protect the integrity of whatever decision this Court will make in the applications for direct access.  It was thus submitted that on that basis alone, this Court has the jurisdiction to stay the proceedings in the magistrates courts. I am unable to agree. The submission would have been cogent and dispositive if the two applications pending before the Court were on constitutional matters.   They are not.  </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:2.0cm"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:2.0cm"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">An application for leave to access the court directly as its name suggests, is an indulgence craved for a constitutional matter to be placed before the court directly. It prepares and paves the way for the filing of a constitutional matter proper. Whilst it is an issue in connection with a constitutional matter in terms of s 167 (1) (b) of the Constitution, it is itself not the constitutional matter. This is so because its determination does not entail the interpretation or protection of the Constitution. Its determination is an exercise of the court’s discretion in the interests of justice, to establish whether the court’s jurisdiction is triggered and engaged in accordance with the law and established practice. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:2.0cm"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:20.7pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Further, the determination of an application for direct access by this Court is not in my view an exercise of the inherent power of this Court to protect and regulate its own processes as submitted by <i>Mr Nyahunzvi</i>. The determination of such an application serves to confirm or deny the presence of a constitutional matter which, in the interests of justice, this Court must determine as a court of first and final instance. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:20.7pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"> </span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Thus, it stands to reason that before an application for leave to access the court directly is granted, there is no constitutional matter before the court. Absent a constitutional matter before the court, its review jurisdiction, as contemplated in the application before me, cannot be triggered.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:2.0cm"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Mr Mubaiwa</span></span></span></i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"> drew my attention to the case of <i>Moyo v Chacha and Others</i> CCZ 15/17.  In that matter, this court stayed the proceedings of the magistrates court pending determination of an application on a constitutional matter that had been filed before it. In a somewhat terse ruling, the court was persuaded that there were gross irregularities attendant upon the process that had been invoked against the applicant. In its own words:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:38px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">“The papers before the court clearly reveal that there is a real possibility that due process was not complied with in the handling of this matter. In the light of that, the concession by the Prosecutor General is based on sound legal considerations in this matter. </span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:38px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Quite clearly, a definitive decision on whether or not there was failure of due process in the handling of this matter can only be determined by the Constitutional Court, as opposed to a Judge sitting in Chambers. It is for the Constitutional Court, if it so finds that there were procedural failures of due process in this matter, to decide what remedies are available to the applicant.”</span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:2.0cm"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">I however find the above case to be of marginal relevance to the application before me.  </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:2.0cm"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:2.0cm"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The facts of the application before me are to be distinguished from the facts in <i>Moyo v Chacha</i> and Others (<i>supra</i>). As stated above, in that case, the substantive constitutional application was pending before this Court, unlike in <i>casu</i>. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:2.0cm"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">It therefore presents itself clearly to me that an application for leave to access this court directly is precisely what its name suggests. It seeks leave to place the constitutional matter before the court. It is itself not the constitutional matter and until it is granted, the constitutional matter is not before the Court and the review jurisdiction of this Court is neither triggered nor engaged. The mere filing of an application for leave to access this Court directly is insufficient to confer jurisdiction upon this Court to interfere with the unterminated proceedings of the magistrates’ courts. It does not afford the applicants the proverbial foot in the door that they had hoped for.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:2.0cm"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:2.0cm"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">It is therefore my finding that I do not have jurisdiction to interfere with the unterminated proceedings that are before the first respondent. In view of this finding, I am unable to procced any further and, in particular, I am unable to determine the issues of urgency or the availability of alternative remedies to the applicants, points that the second respondent raised in opposition to the application.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Disposition</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:2.0cm"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Regarding costs, there is no justification that I depart from the general position not to make an order as to costs in favour of any of the parties in an application of this nature.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:2.0cm"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:2.0cm"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">In the result, I make the following order:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:1.0cm"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The application is dismissed with no order as to costs.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Mbidzo, Muchadehama &amp;Makoni</span></span></span></i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">, applicant’s legal practitioners.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The National Prosecuting Authority</span></span></span></i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">, 2<sup>nd</sup> respondent’s legal practitioners.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> </div> <div class="views-element-container"><div class="view view-eva view-download-conditional view-id-download_conditional view-display-id-entity_view_1 js-view-dom-id-a56ee34a5ab15002e7c71c2b70862c33c132b9689e9aae17e0121dc9261a5522"> <div><div class="views-field views-field-views-conditional-field"><span class="field-content"><p align="right" style="text-align:right"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Judgment No. CCZ 4/22</span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p align="right" style="text-align:right"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Constitutional Application No. CCZ 29/22</span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><u><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">DISTRIBUTABLE:</span></span></span></u></b><b><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">       (4)</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p align="center" style="text-align:center"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[1]     JOANAH     MAMOMBE     [2]     CECILIA     REVAI     CHIMBIRU</span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p align="center" style="text-align:center"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">v</span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p align="center" style="text-align:center"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[1]     FAITH     MUSHURE     N.O.     [2]     THE     STATE</span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF ZIMBABWE</span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">MAKARAU JCC</span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">HARARE: 27 APRIL &amp; 10 JUNE 2022</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">URGENT CHAMBER APPLICATION</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">E. Mubaiwa </span></span></span></i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">and<i> A Muchadehama,</i> for applicants</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">F.I. Nyahunzvi</span></span></span></i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"> and <i>T Mapfuwa,</i> for second respondent</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:2.0cm"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">MAKARAU JCC: </span></span></span></b><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">This is an urgent application for an order staying certain unterminated criminal proceedings against the applicants. The proceedings are underway before the first respondent, a Regional Magistrate. The applicants seek to stay the proceedings pending determination of two applications that they filed with this Court for direct access. If successful in the applications for direct access, the applicants intend to file an application in terms of s 85(1) of the Constitution, allegedly for the enforcement of their fundamental rights and or freedoms. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Background</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:2.0cm"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">As stated above, the applicants are jointly appearing before the first respondent.  They stand accused of publishing or communicating false statements that are prejudicial to the State in contravention of s 31(a) (i) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [<i>Chapter 9.23</i>].  The charge has two other alternatives whose particulars are not material in the determination of this application. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:2.0cm"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:2.0cm"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">At the commencement of their trial, the applicants requested that certain constitutional questions be referred to this Court in terms of s 175(4) of the Constitution. The request was dismissed and the trial of the matter commenced. In dismissing the request, the first respondent formed the view that the request was not <i>bona fide</i> but was generally marked by a lack of seriousness.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:2.0cm"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:2.0cm"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Dissatisfied with the refusal of their request, the applicants filed two applications to this Court seeking the leave of the court to approach it directly. In these applications, filed on 12 April 2022, the applicants contend in the main that the refusal of their request by the first respondent to refer the matter to this Court violates their rights to protection of the law. Arguing that they have no alternative remedy to approaching this Court directly, the applicants further contend that it is in the interests of justice that this Court considers the questions that they had requested the first respondent to refer to this Court.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:2.0cm"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:2.0cm"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">In the request for referral, the applicants had raised the constitutionality of s 31(a)(i) and (iii) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [<i>Chapter 9.23</i>], under which they are being charged and tried. They also sought to challenge the admissibility as evidence against them of the statements that they had given to the police at some stage during the investigation of the matter. They alleged that such statements were forcefully extracted from them. They further contended that their trial has received wide adverse media coverage which has compromised their rights to a fair trial.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:2.0cm"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:2.0cm"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">On 26 April 2022, the applicants filed this urgent application in which as stated above, they seek an order staying the criminal proceedings against them before the first respondent, pending determination of the applications for direct access.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:2.0cm"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:2.0cm"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The applicants have not simultaneously with, or alternatively to the urgent application before me, filed an application seeking directions that the applications for direct access be heard urgently or that such be summarily disposed of in terms of r 21 of the Constitutional Court Rules. They appear content to simply apply for a stay of the ongoing proceedings before the first respondent pending determination of their applications for direct access. This manner of proceeding has, and deservedly so, given rise to the perception and argument by the second respondent that the applicants are merely bent on delaying the finalisation of the criminal trial that is before the first respondent.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:2.0cm"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:2.0cm"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The urgent application was opposed by the second respondent.  As a preliminary point, the respondent argued that an application to postpone the hearing of the matter could have been made before the trial court under ss 165 and 166 of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act [<i>Chapter 9.07</i>].  Regarding the merits of the application, the second respondent argued that the inherent jurisdiction conferred upon this Court to regulate its own processes does not entail a power to regulate the criminal proceedings before the first respondent. In the final analysis, the respondent argued that the matter is not urgent.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:2.0cm"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:2.0cm"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">At the hearing of the application, I requested the parties to address me on whether this Court has jurisdiction to grant the relief that the applicants are seeking.   This was so because in my view, the preliminary issue that falls for determination in this application is whether this Court, before it determines the applications for direct access, has the requisite jurisdiction to interfere with the unterminated proceedings before the first respondent. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The law</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:2.0cm"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">In a long line of cases from this jurisdiction and elsewhere, the admonition is repeatedly sounded and explained, that superior courts should be very slow in interfering with the unterminated proceedings of lower courts. The exception is made for cases where there is a gross irregularity or a wrong decision by the lower court that will seriously prejudice the rights of a litigant or accused person and which irregularity or wrong decision cannot be corrected by any other means. (See <i>Attorney- General v Makamba</i>  2005 (2) ZLR 54 (S); <i>Rasher v Minister of Justice</i> 1930 TPD 810; <i>Ginsberg v Additional Magistrate of Cape Town </i>1933 CPD 357;  <i>Walhaus v Additional Magistrate, Johanesburg &amp; Anor </i>1959 (3) SA 113 (A);  <i>Masedza &amp; Others v Magistrate, Rusape and Others</i> 1998 (1) ZLR 36 (H); <i>Mantzaris v University of Durban -Westville &amp;Others</i> (2000) 10 BLLR 1203 LC;   <i>Rose v S</i> HH71/2002; <i>Mutumwa and Anor</i> v S HH104/2008,; <i>Chikusvu v Magistrate, Mahwe</i> HH100/2015; <i>Chawira and Others v Minister, Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs and Ors</i> CCZ3/17 and <i>Shava v Magomere</i> HB 100/17).</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:2.0cm"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:2.0cm"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The above admonition is sounded to a superior court that has inherent or legislatively-conferred review powers over the proceedings or decisions of the lower court. It is meant to guide the approach to be taken by such a court. This is so because the power to interfere with the unterminated proceedings of a lower court either permanently or as affording interlocutory relief, is nothing but an exercise of review jurisdiction by the superior court over the proceedings or decisions of the lower court. The authorities clearly establish the position at law that proceedings in a lower court or its decision are only interfered with if there is a gross irregularity in the proceedings or the interlocutory decision is clearly wrong. Both instances respectively encompass the common law review grounds of gross irregularity in the proceedings and/or gross unreasonableness in the decision.  By established practice of the courts, it is thus accepted that the existence of these two grounds of review may, in appropriate circumstances, justify a superior court of competent jurisdiction interfering with the ongoing proceedings of a lower court.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:2.0cm"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:2.0cm"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">This Court decides only constitutional matters and issues connected with decisions on constitutional matters. It is not a court of inherent jurisdiction and thus lacks inherent review powers over lower courts.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:2.0cm"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:2.0cm"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The Court however has legislatively-conferred review powers. These are set out in s 19 of the Constitutional Court Act [<i>Chapter 7.22</i>]. Whilst fairly wide, the review powers of this Court are correspondingly and in conformity with the Constitution, limited in scope to constitutional matters only. Section 19 of the Constitutional Court Act thus provides:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="Default" style="text-align:justify; text-indent:1.0cm"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black"><b>“19 Review Powers </b></span></span></span></p> <p class="Default" style="margin-left:85px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-35.45pt"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black">(1)       Subject to this section, the court and every Judge shall have, <b>in constitutional matters</b>, the power to review the proceedings and decisions of the Supreme Court, the High Court and all other subordinate courts, tribunals and administrative authorities. </span></span></span></p> <p class="Default" style="margin-left:85px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-35.45pt"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black">(2)       The power, jurisdiction and authority conferred by subs (1) may be exercised whenever it comes to the notice of the court or a Judge that an irregularity has occurred in any proceedings or in the making of any decision, notwithstanding that such proceedings are, or such decision is, not the subject of an appeal or application to the court. </span></span></span></p> <p class="Default" style="margin-left:85px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-35.45pt"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black">(3)       Nothing in this section shall be construed as conferring upon any person any right to institute any review in the first instance before the court or a Judge, and provision may be made in rules of court, and a Judge may give directions, specifying that any class of review or any particular review shall be instituted before, or shall be referred or remitted to the Supreme Court, the High Court or the Labour Court, as the case may be, for determination.” (The emphasis is mine.)</span></span></span></p> <p class="Default" style="margin-left:85px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-35.45pt"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:2.0cm"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">If it is accepted, which it must, that this Court lacks inherent jurisdiction to review the proceedings and decisions of lower courts in non-constitutional matters, it stands to reason that this Court must be dead slow in interfering with the unterminated proceedings of any lower court and proceed only after it is satisfied that there is a constitutional matter arising in the matter. Put differently, the review jurisdiction of this Court is only triggered and engaged after this Court has satisfied itself that the matter involved is a constitutional matter. I venture to suggest that where the matter is intended to be brought before this Court as a court of first instance, as in <i>casu</i>, this Court must only proceed to interfere with the unterminated proceedings of a lower court where it intends, in the interests of justice, to grant direct access in the matter and determine the matter itself. Put differently, this Court must only interfere with unterminated proceedings in the lower courts where it has jurisdiction in the matter. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:38px; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.0cm"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:2.0cm"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">If it were to proceed in any other manner, this Court would run the risk of rushing in and interfering with unterminated proceedings in a lower court that on final analysis turn out to have been on a non-constitutional matter. In such an instance, the interference by this Court would lack legitimacy as having been made in breach of the Constitution that confines the jurisdiction of this Court only to constitutional matters and decisions in issues involving a constitutional matter.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Analysis</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:2.0cm"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">In this application, it is common cause that the applicants have filed two applications for direct access. The applications are yet to be determined. This in turn means that this Court has not yet determined that the two applications raise constitutional matters that will engage its jurisdiction.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:2.0cm"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The submission was made by <i>Mr Mubaiwa</i> that the urgent application before me seeks to protect the integrity of whatever decision this Court will make in the applications for direct access.  It was thus submitted that on that basis alone, this Court has the jurisdiction to stay the proceedings in the magistrates courts. I am unable to agree. The submission would have been cogent and dispositive if the two applications pending before the Court were on constitutional matters.   They are not.  </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:2.0cm"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:2.0cm"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">An application for leave to access the court directly as its name suggests, is an indulgence craved for a constitutional matter to be placed before the court directly. It prepares and paves the way for the filing of a constitutional matter proper. Whilst it is an issue in connection with a constitutional matter in terms of s 167 (1) (b) of the Constitution, it is itself not the constitutional matter. This is so because its determination does not entail the interpretation or protection of the Constitution. Its determination is an exercise of the court’s discretion in the interests of justice, to establish whether the court’s jurisdiction is triggered and engaged in accordance with the law and established practice. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:2.0cm"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:20.7pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Further, the determination of an application for direct access by this Court is not in my view an exercise of the inherent power of this Court to protect and regulate its own processes as submitted by <i>Mr Nyahunzvi</i>. The determination of such an application serves to confirm or deny the presence of a constitutional matter which, in the interests of justice, this Court must determine as a court of first and final instance. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:20.7pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"> </span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Thus, it stands to reason that before an application for leave to access the court directly is granted, there is no constitutional matter before the court. Absent a constitutional matter before the court, its review jurisdiction, as contemplated in the application before me, cannot be triggered.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:2.0cm"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Mr Mubaiwa</span></span></span></i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"> drew my attention to the case of <i>Moyo v Chacha and Others</i> CCZ 15/17.  In that matter, this court stayed the proceedings of the magistrates court pending determination of an application on a constitutional matter that had been filed before it. In a somewhat terse ruling, the court was persuaded that there were gross irregularities attendant upon the process that had been invoked against the applicant. In its own words:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:38px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">“The papers before the court clearly reveal that there is a real possibility that due process was not complied with in the handling of this matter. In the light of that, the concession by the Prosecutor General is based on sound legal considerations in this matter. </span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:38px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Quite clearly, a definitive decision on whether or not there was failure of due process in the handling of this matter can only be determined by the Constitutional Court, as opposed to a Judge sitting in Chambers. It is for the Constitutional Court, if it so finds that there were procedural failures of due process in this matter, to decide what remedies are available to the applicant.”</span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:2.0cm"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">I however find the above case to be of marginal relevance to the application before me.  </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:2.0cm"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:2.0cm"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The facts of the application before me are to be distinguished from the facts in <i>Moyo v Chacha</i> and Others (<i>supra</i>). As stated above, in that case, the substantive constitutional application was pending before this Court, unlike in <i>casu</i>. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:2.0cm"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">It therefore presents itself clearly to me that an application for leave to access this court directly is precisely what its name suggests. It seeks leave to place the constitutional matter before the court. It is itself not the constitutional matter and until it is granted, the constitutional matter is not before the Court and the review jurisdiction of this Court is neither triggered nor engaged. The mere filing of an application for leave to access this Court directly is insufficient to confer jurisdiction upon this Court to interfere with the unterminated proceedings of the magistrates’ courts. It does not afford the applicants the proverbial foot in the door that they had hoped for.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:2.0cm"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:2.0cm"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">It is therefore my finding that I do not have jurisdiction to interfere with the unterminated proceedings that are before the first respondent. In view of this finding, I am unable to procced any further and, in particular, I am unable to determine the issues of urgency or the availability of alternative remedies to the applicants, points that the second respondent raised in opposition to the application.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Disposition</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:2.0cm"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Regarding costs, there is no justification that I depart from the general position not to make an order as to costs in favour of any of the parties in an application of this nature.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:2.0cm"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:2.0cm"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">In the result, I make the following order:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:1.0cm"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The application is dismissed with no order as to costs.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Mbidzo, Muchadehama &amp;Makoni</span></span></span></i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">, applicant’s legal practitioners.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The National Prosecuting Authority</span></span></span></i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">, 2<sup>nd</sup> respondent’s legal practitioners.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p></span></div></div> </div> </div> Mon, 13 Jun 2022 08:41:50 +0000 Sandra Muengwa 12521 at http://zimlii.org Grain Milling Employers Association of Zimbabwe v Small to Medium Enterprises Association of Zimbabwe and 3 Others (263 of 2022) [2022] ZWHHC 263 (21 April 2022); http://zimlii.org/zw/judgment/harare-high-court/2022/263 <span class="field field--name-title field--type-string field--label-hidden">Grain Milling Employers Association of Zimbabwe v Small to Medium Enterprises Association of Zimbabwe and 3 Others (263 of 2022) [2022] ZWHHC 263 (21 April 2022);</span> <div class="field field--name-field-flynote field--type-entity-reference field--label-above"> <div class="field__label">Flynote</div> <div class='field__items'> <div class="field__item"><a href="/taxonomy/term/1566" hreflang="en">Jurisdiction</a></div> <div class="field__item"><a href="/taxonomy/term/2262" hreflang="x-default">Collective bargaining</a></div> <div class="field__item"><a href="/taxonomy/term/2295" hreflang="x-default">interdict sought as provisional relief (Urgent Application)</a></div> <div class="field__item"><a href="/taxonomy/term/2271" hreflang="x-default">what constitutes urgency (Urgent application)</a></div> <div class="field__item"><a href="/taxonomy/term/2272" hreflang="x-default">when may be made (Urgent application)</a></div> </div> </div> <span class="field field--name-uid field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden"><span>Sandra Muengwa</span></span> <span class="field field--name-created field--type-created field--label-hidden">Tue, 05/03/2022 - 07:40</span> <div class="field field--name-field-files field--type-file field--label-above"> <div class="field__label">Download</div> <div class='field__items'> <div class="field__item"> <span class="file file--mime-application-vnd-openxmlformats-officedocument-wordprocessingml-document file--x-office-document"> <a href="https://media.zimlii.org/files/judgments/zwhhc/2022/263/2022-zwhhc-263.docx" type="application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document; length=56977">2022-zwhhc-263.docx</a></span> </div> <div class="field__item"> <span class="file file--mime-application-pdf file--application-pdf"> <a href="https://media.zimlii.org/files/judgments/zwhhc/2022/263/2022-zwhhc-263.pdf" type="application/pdf; length=845643">2022-zwhhc-263.pdf</a></span> </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-body field--type-text-with-summary field--label-hidden field__item"><p class="text-align-right">HH 263-22</p> <p class="text-align-right">HC 2036/22</p> <p> </p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">GRAIN MILLING EMPLOYERS ASSOCIATION OF ZIMBABWE  </span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">versus</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">SMALL TO MEDIUM ENTERPRISES ASSOCIATION OF ZIMBABWE                     </span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">and</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">MILLING INDUSTRY WORKERS UNION  </span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">and</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">NATIONAL EMPLOYMENT COUNCIL FOR THE FOOD AND ALLIED INDUSTRIES </span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">and </span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">REGISTRAR OF LABOUR N.O.  </span></span></span></span></span></p> <p> </p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">MUSITHU J</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">HARARE, 30 March &amp; 5, 14 &amp; 21 April 2022</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Urgent Chamber Application-Interdict </span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">B. Magogo, </span></span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">for the applicant</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">L. Madhuku, </span></span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">for the 1<sup>st</sup> and 2<sup>nd</sup> respondents</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">J. Sande, </span></span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">for the 3<sup>rd</sup> respondent</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            MUSITHU J: The applicant seeks interim relief staying the registration of a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) negotiated between the first and second respondents. The relief sought is set out in the draft order as follows:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">            <span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">“<b>TERMS OF THE FINAL ORDER SOUGHT</b></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">That you show cause to this Honourable Court, why a final Order should not be made in the following terms:-</span></span></span></span></p> <ol><li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">Applicant be and is hereby declared to be a duly registered employer’s association for the third Respondent’s Milling sub-sector with competence to negotiate collective bargaining agreements in the undertaking.</span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">Pending verification of its membership, the first Respondent is hereby declared an incompetent party for purposes of negotiating collective bargaining agreements on behalf of employers in the third Respondent’s Milling Subsector.</span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">The Collective Bargaining Agreement: Food and Allied Industries (Milling Sub-sector) between first and second Respondent dated 22 March 2022 be and is hereby declared to be null and void and consequently incapable of registration with the fourth Respondent.</span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">The fourth Respondent be and is hereby ordered and directed not to register the Collective Bargaining Agreement: Food and Allied Industries (Milling Sub-sector) between first and second Respondent dated 22 March 2022.</span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">Alternatively; if, at the time of issuance of this order fourth Respondent has already registered the Collective Bargaining Agreement: Food and Allied Industries (Milling Sub-sector) between first and second Respondent dated 22 March 2022, then in that event such registration be and is hereby set aside.</span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">The first and second Respondent shall, jointly and severally the one paying the other to be absolved, pay Applicant’s costs of suit on the attorney client scale.</span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:72px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">INTERIM RELIEF GRANTED</span></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">Pending the finalisation of the matter on the return day, Applicant is granted the following relief:-</span></span></span></span></p> <ol><li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">The registration of the Collective Bargaining Agreement: Food and Allied Industries (Milling Sub-sector) between first and second Respondent dated 22 March 2022 be and is hereby stayed;</span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">First Respondent be and is hereby temporarily interdicted from further participating in any collective bargaining negotiations for the Milling sub-sector.</span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:72px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">SERVICE OF THIS PROVISIONAL ORDER</span></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">The Sheriff or alternatively Applicant’s legal practitioners be and is hereby granted leave to serve this interim order on the Respondent.</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">”</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The application was opposed by the first to third respondents. The applicant is an employer association registered in terms of the Labour Act (the Act).<a href="#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1" title="" id="_ftnref1"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[1]</span></span></span></span></span></a> The first respondent is also an employer association registered in terms of the Act. The second respondent is a trade union also registered in terms of the Act. The third respondent is an employment council registered in terms of the Act. It regulates the activities of its affiliated members. The fourth respondent is an official appointed in terms of the Act. His responsibilities includes the registration and supervision of the activities of trade unions and employment councils. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The Applicant’s Case</span></span></span></i></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            Applicant was registered by the fourth respondent as an employers’ association on 29 December 1998. Over the years, it has participated in collective bargaining negotiations on behalf of employers in the milling sector. The applicant claims that at some point it incorporated a separate legal entity known as the Grain Millers Association of Zimbabwe (Private) Limited (GMAZ). That entity has the mandate to handle labour related matters that concerns the applicant and its membership. The applicant claims that although the two entities are distinct legal personalities, their leadership is substantially similar. As a result of this position, there has been a conflation of the two by stakeholders in the industry.  The applicant avers that such conflation did not cause any problems until the birth of the first respondent. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The applicant claims that the first respondent is a product of disgruntled former employees of the applicant. It acquired registration status as an employer association in 2021. Such registration entitled it to admission as a member of third respondent provided it met certain criteria established under the third respondent’s constitution. The secondment of its members to committees of the third respondent was subject to the proportional sharing of seats with existing employers’ associations after verification of its membership. Soon after its registration, the first responded pushed for its inclusion in the collective bargaining council, as well as demanding the sharing of seats in third respondent’s committees. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">A meeting was convened for 7 February 2022, at which the seat sharing and verification process was supposed to be done. At the meeting, the question of the membership and representation of the applicant and GMAZ arose, with the first respondent alleging that the applicant was now defunct. This was on account of the fact that the applicant was at all material times represented in the council by members of GMAZ. The third respondent was requested to make a ruling on the issue of the applicant’s status in the council before the verification exercise could commence. The third respondent’s chairperson declined to make a ruling on the issue in light of the applicant’s registration. The issue was referred to a representative of the fourth respondent who was also in attendance. That representative also declined to deal with the matter at that point as the complaint had not been formally registered with the fourth respondent’s office. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The first respondent sought an adjournment of the meeting to allow it time to take up the matter with the fourth respondent. Accordingly no membership verification was then carried out. The applicant claims it had brought along to the meeting, a complete register of its own membership. It further claims that the first respondent failed to produce a register of its own members. The applicant claims that the first respondent only had one member. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Following the aborted meeting, on 11 February 2022, the third respondent’s General Secretary wrote to the fourth respondent seeking his intervention in the matter. The letter reads in part as follows:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">“RE: STALEMATE IN THE MILLING INDUSTRY </span></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">………………………..</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">We hereby seek your intervention in resolving the verification of Registration Certificates and other attendant issues among the Milling Industry parties.</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">We thank you for your usual support and guidance.</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">……………….”</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The fourth respondent responded through a letter of 17 March 2022. The letter reads in part as follows:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">“REF: VERIFICATION OF REGISTRATION CERTIFICATES OF PARTIES TO THE MILLING INDUSTRY</span></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">            ……………………………………</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">Reference is made to your letter dated 11 February 2022 in which you requested for our intervention through the verification of Registration Certificates among milling industry parties. May you please clarify the sort of intervention required and also provide the names of parties whose Registration certificates you require.</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">Please be guided accordingly</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">………………..”</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The applicant claims that the letter did not elicit a response from the third respondent. The applicant asserts that it received an alert from one of its members that there was communication from the United Food and Allied Workers Union of Zimbabwe, (UFAWUZ) suggesting that the meeting of 7 February 2022 was all but conclusive as regards the matters discussed thereat. The letter dated 8 February 2022, and addressed to the third respondent read in part as follows:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><u><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">“RESUMPTION OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING MEETINGS IN THE MILLING INDUSTRY SUBSECTOR UNDERTAKING: WAGE STALEMATE FOR 2021 AND GOING FORWARD</span></u></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">Following Trade Union enquiry on sharing of seats between Grain Millers Association of Zimbabwe and Small to Medium Millers Employers Association of Zimbabwe, and the feedback thereto and notwithstanding the 2021 wage stalemate, the Trade Union observes the following:</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"> </p> <ol><li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">The issue of whether Grain Millers Association of Zimbabwe is a registered employer Association or not is a fundamental issue in that the Trade Union at law is supposed to deal and work with a duly registered employers Association, registered in the industry or Subsector undertaking. This conclusion ought not and should not be construed as Trade Union interference in the intra challenges within the employer parties.</span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:72px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">It is a simple affirmation of what the law states and requires.</span></span></span></span></p> <ol start="2"><li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">The Trade Union is available and ready to resume wage negotiations as soon as employer party is properly constituted.</span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">We further acknowledge the feedback of the meeting of the employer party on sharing of seats, which feedback shows that the employer party notwithstanding some housekeeping issues is now properly constituted.</span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">………………….</span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">The so called dispute between the two employer Associations cannot and will not scuttle any prospects of wage negotiations in the Milling Industry going forward.</span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">The so called dispute between the two can still be resolved while wage negotiations and other subsector undertaking related issues are ongoing.</span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:72px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">It is against this background and observation that the Trade Union wishes to inform the General Secretary of the N.E.C, the following:-</span></span></span></span></p> <ol start="7"><li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">There is a registered employer Association whose certificate of registration is not subject to dispute by all.</span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">The workers in the Milling Industry can no longer wait for the resolution of the so called dispute while they wallow in employer induced poverty as their wage was last reviewed in October 2020.</span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">Milling Industry Workers Union has thus resolved that forthwith they begin negotiations and other subsector undertaking related business with an Employer Association whose certificate of registration is not in dispute. In line with the lawful position the Union will not deal with an Employers Association without a registration certificate or one which is renting a certificate of a now defunct employer Association.</span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">In light of this take notice that a meeting for Collective Bargaining by agreement has been slated for Friday 11 February 2022 at a venue to be communicated.</span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:72px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">…………….” </span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The letter was copied to both third and fourth respondents. Neither reacted to the letter. The applicant approached its legal practitioners, who on 17 February 2022 wrote to the third respondent reiterating the applicant’s position on the matter. The material part of the letter reads as follows:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">“RE: NEC FOOD MILLING SUBSECTOR-EMPLOYER PARTIES SHARING OF SEATS</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US"> ………………………</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">Pursuant to the meeting that was held on the 7<sup>th</sup> of February 2022, at the NEC offices for sharing of seats between the employer parties in the milling sub-sector in terms of which the meeting was adjourned because the Small to Medium Millers Association of Zimbabwe SMMAZ challenged the presence of our client in the meeting. The challenge was based on the allegation that ours did not exist and was not entitled to be in the said meeting because they had specifically requested to meet with GMAZ. We wish to expressly state that we stand as directed by the Chairman that he did not have any authority to adjudicate on the legality of the existence of GMEAZ and therefore directed any aggrieved parties to follow the legal channels to have the issues determined.</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">Despite the clear directive by the Chairman, SMMAZ proceeded to meet with U.F.A.W.U.Z and misled the union that it was representing the employers’ organization and misrepresented that it had taken up all seat in the subsector for the employer party. This is evident from the letter to the NEC by the Trade Union dated 8 February (See annexure A) in terms of which paragraph 3 stated that the employer party had been properly constituted. Seat where not shared at the meeting for sharing of seats so one fails to understand how the trade union asserts that the employer organization was properly constituted. </span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">This is definitely not a true record of what transpired because parties did not share any seat after the same SMMAZ sought an adjournment of the meeting. SMMAZ cannot legally take up all seats because it represents only 1 employer, the other company it purported to represent denies being it member and we have confirmation to that effect. On what basis and on whose mandate does it purport to represent employers. The provisions of the NEC Food and Allied Industries Constitution Amendment No 1 is clear. Clause 5.3 is clear regarding sharing of seats and states that same is done on verifiable employership for each registered employer organization party.</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">Our client is a registered employer organization and on what basis is SMMAZ allowed to meet with the trade Union and state that it occupies all seats in clear disregard of our client which has 56 members in the Northern Region and 43 members in the Southern Region……………………………</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">We want to clearly state it and have it on record that any meetings and negotiations done by SMMAZ with unions in the absence of our client are illegal and therefore void. Any outcomes thereof will not bind our clients’ members as SMMAZ does not have mandate to represent our clients’ members. Our client is legally registered and the allegation that it is defunct is yet to be confirmed by a competent court of all. …………………………………………………</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">We call upon your competent office to call SMMAZ to order and to put the record straight especially with the Unions because it is misrepresenting the outcome of the meeting which you chaired. SMMAZ should forthwith stop misrepresenting to the Unions as its behaviour is criminal and illegal, the trade unions should be directed by the NEC as it is the regulating body over all parties. If the behaviour and illegal action does not stop, we want to have it on record that our client will approach the court for relief against the rogue elements that continue on the illegalities………” </span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The letter was copied to GMAZ, first and fourth respondents and UFAWUZ. The applicant claims that none of the parties responded to the letter, and it assumed the parties were content with the position as expressed in the aforementioned letter. The applicant asserts that it also took comfort in the belief that the parties concerns were being attended to by the fourth respondent. It therefore came as shock when the applicant received a memorandum from the third respondent addressed directly to the applicant’s members, the NEC chairperson, the fourth respondent and the UFAWUZ. The memorandum which was inadvertently dated 24 March 2024, reads as follows:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><u><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">“REF: MILLING INDUSTRY COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT</span></u></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">I am glad to announce that the Collective Bargaining Agreement for the Milling Industry sub-sector undertaking for the period January 2022 to March 2022 has been concluded as per the copy attached. The agreement has since been sent to the Registrar for gazetting. </span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">………..”</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The attached CBA made reference to a meeting that was held on 22 March 2022, where the new structure for wages and allowances was agreed upon. That memorandum drew the ire of the applicant. The applicant reacted by writing to both third and fourth respondents querying the circumstances under which the agreement was reached in the absence of the applicant who represented the majority of the employers in the sector. It is that communication that triggered an approach to this court on an urgent basis for the interim relief sought herein. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">First Respondent’s Opposition</span></span></span></i></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            The first respondent’s opposing affidavit was deposed to by one Alois Sengwe in his capacity as National Administrator of first respondent. He raised the following in <i>limine</i>: absence of jurisdiction; that a lawful process cannot be interdicted; failure to exhaust domestic remedies and lack of urgency. I will deal with these latter in the judgment.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            As regards the merits, it was averred that the applicant had not laid out a case for the relief it sought. It had failed to plead the four requirements of an interdict as required by the law. In any case, the applicant had no cause before the court as it had not operated as an employers’ association for the past six years. The applicant had not participated in any CBA for a couple of years now. The applicant was now defunct and the objections that had been made concerning its status were valid. The officials behind the applicant were the same people behind the GMAZ. It was the entity that used to participate in the affairs of the third respondent, albeit as an unregistered association. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            First respondent also contended that the <i>declaraturs </i>sought were meaningless, primarily because the CBA was protected by the principle of private of contract. The applicant could not seek to derive rights from an agreement that it was not party to. First respondent was registered in terms of the law, and as such it enjoyed the full protection of the law. Further, the court could not be invited to interfere with the statutory functions of the fourth respondent. No irreparable harm had been established by the applicant. The balance of convenience favoured non-interference by the court as the livelihoods of affected employees were at stake. The court was urged to dismiss the application with costs on the legal practitioner and client scale.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Second Respondent’s Opposition </span></span></span></i></b>     </span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            The opposing affidavit was deposed to by the General Secretary of the United Food and Allied Workers Union of Zimbabwe (UFAWUZ). It is a federation of Trade Unions to which the second respondent is affiliated. A resolution of the National Executive of UFAWUZ confirming such authority to depose to the affidavit was also attached. The opposing affidavit raised similar preliminary points as those raised by the first respondent. As regards the merits, the second respondent associated itself with the responses made on behalf of the first respondent. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Third Respondent’s Opposition </span></span></span></i></b><b> </b></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The opposing affidavit raised two preliminary points at the outset. These are absence of jurisdiction and failure to exhaust domestic remedies. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">As regards the merits, it was contended that the applicant was all but defunct as officials of GMAZ actively participated in the affairs of the applicant. It was further averred that although the third respondent had sought the fourth respondent’s intervention in the dispute, it was entirely up to the parties to push for a resolution of the matter as the aggrieved parties. That explained why the fourth respondent’s letter requesting further details on the dispute did not receive a response from the third respondent. Third respondent averred that the CBA was adopted following a meeting held on 22 March 2022. The applicant was allegedly made aware of the meeting through a telephone call to a Mr Shumba. Verification of the attendees was done and negotiations proceeded thereafter. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The third respondent averred that the applicant had failed to establish its right to participate in the CBA. Such right did not exist as its membership was not even verified. The applicant had failed to establish a <i>prima facie</i> case. Neither did it have any existing, future or contingent right arising from the unregistered CBA. The CBA had not yet been operationalized, and as such no rights accrued therefrom. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">It was also averred that the matter was not urgent. The CBA which was being challenged had not yet been registered. There was nothing on record to show that its registration was imminent. The fourth respondent who was aware of the dispute had not yet applied her mind to the agreement. The internal remedies accorded by the labour laws had not been exhausted. Representations could still be made to the fourth respond to block the registration of the CBA. The urgency was self-created. The application was bad in law. The applicant had not made out a case for the granting of the relief sought. The court was urged to dismiss the application with costs on a higher scale. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">At the commencement of the oral submissions, Mr <i>Magogo </i>for the applicant submitted that the second respondent was not properly before the court as its opposing affidavit was deposed to and filed by a party that had no interest in the proceedings. This objection shall be determined together with other objections raised on behalf of the respondents. The court must however consider the question of whether it has jurisdiction to entertain this application at the outset. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">SUBMISSIONS AND ANALYSIS ON THE PRELIMINARY POINTS </span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Jurisdiction </span></span></span></i></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Mr <i>Madhuku</i> for the first and second respondents submitted that what was before the court was clearly a labour dispute. The applicant was seeking the resolution of a dispute that had arisen in the milling industry. The Act provided an inbuilt mechanism for the resolution of such disputes. The Act provided for the negotiation and registration of a CBA. The same Act also established the office of the fourth respondent.  Mr <i>Madhuku</i> further submitted that the applicant ought to have utilized the procedure for the resolution of labour disputes provided under s 93 of the Labour Act. The court was referred to decisions of the Superior Courts which have resolved that the High Court has no jurisdiction over labour matters.<a href="#_ftn2" name="_ftnref2" title="" id="_ftnref2"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[2]</span></span></span></span></span></a></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">In her submissions on the same point, Ms <i>Sande</i> for the third respondent averred that the manner in which the application was couched suggested that applicant’s complaint was so much about the procedural defects that afflicted the manner in which the CBA was negotiated. The substantive relief sought on the return date was clearly one obtainable through a review disguised as a <i>declaratur</i>. The court was referred to the cases of <i>Kuchena v Scientific Industrial and Development Centre<a href="#_ftn3" name="_ftnref3" title="" id="_ftnref3"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[3]</span></span></span></b></span></span></a></i> and <i>Kabichi v Minerals Marketing Corporation of Zimbabwe<a href="#_ftn4" name="_ftnref4" title="" id="_ftnref4"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[4]</span></span></span></b></span></span></a></i>, in which this court declined to exercise its inherent jurisdiction, asserting that labour matters must remain the domain of the Labour Court. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">In reply, Mr <i>Magogo</i> submitted that this court must be slow in declining jurisdiction in labour matters where the Act makes no provision for the resolution of a labour related dispute between the parties. He further submitted that the Act did not make provision for the resolution of disputes of this nature and for that reason, the inherent jurisdiction of this court was not ousted. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">This court is aware that the position of the law is now settled that the High Court cannot exercise its original jurisdiction in labour matters.<a href="#_ftn5" name="_ftnref5" title="" id="_ftnref5"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[5]</span></span></span></span></span></a> There remains residual matters in respect of which the High Court is still imbued with jurisdiction to deal with such matters notwithstanding the fact that they fall within the domain of labour matters. In determining whether the dispute before it is exclusively a labour matter, the court must not look at the relief sought by a litigant alone. It must have regard to the grounds upon which the application is premised as substantiated by the material averments of evidence made in the founding affidavit. In <i>Muchenje v Mutangadura &amp; Ors<a href="#_ftn6" name="_ftnref6" title="" id="_ftnref6"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[6]</span></span></span></b></span></span></a></i>, MUREMBA J articulated the position as follows:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">“The fact that the applicant is seeking a particular relief is not itself decisive. In other words what is important or what matters are the grounds on which the application is based rather than the order or relief that is being sought. Regard should be heard to the substance of the application and the averments contained therein instead of the relief that is being sought…”</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The views of the learned judge are quite apposite. It is not unusual for litigants to disguise matters under some appellation that would ordinarily take it out of the labour domain, when for all intents and purposes, such a matter must be dealt with in terms of the labour laws. A perusal of paragraph 23 of the founding affidavit shows that the applicant in essence seeks several <i>declaraturs </i>which fall for determination on the return date. Mr <i>Madhuku’s</i> submission that s 93 (7) of the Act accords the applicant sufficient remedies that he ought to have pursued instead of approaching this court is indeed persuasive. However what takes this case outside the ambit of s 93 of the Act is the nature of the application as amplified by the evidence placed before the court. I am of course minded that at this stage this court cannot interrogate the merits of the application as regards the substantive relief sought on the return date. That is a matter for the court to consider on the return date. Suffice it to note that the Labour Court does not have the powers to issue <i>declaraturs</i> or grant interim interdicts of the nature sought herein.<a href="#_ftn7" name="_ftnref7" title="" id="_ftnref7"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[7]</span></span></span></span></span></a> </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The court’s attention was also drawn to the judgment of my brother DEME J in <i>Baking and Allied Workers Union &amp; Four Others</i> v<i> National Employment Council for Food and Allied Industries and Seven Others<a href="#_ftn8" name="_ftnref8" title="" id="_ftnref8"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[8]</span></span></span></b></span></span></a></i> where this court amongst other reasons given, declined jurisdiction on the basis that the parties had agreed in their constitution that all disputes that may arise must be resolved in terms of the Labour Act as amended from time to time. That finding was made after the court had considered the matter on the merits. That issue was not argued before me and I must hazard to also point that this court is not concerned with the merits of the dispute at this stage. Suffice it to observe though that the jurisdiction of the court cannot be easily ousted by an agreement between the parties. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">For the foregoing reasons, I find that this court has jurisdiction to deal with this matter.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Whether the Second Respondent is properly before the court</span></span></span></i></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The second respondent’s opposing affidavit was deposed to by the General Secretary of UFAWUZ. That entity is a federation of trade unions to which the second respondent is affiliated. Mr <i>Magogo</i> submitted that there was no opposition on behalf of the second respondent as its affidavit was deposed to by an official representing an entity that was not a party to the proceedings. He further submitted that the decision to oppose the application could not be taken by any other party other than the second respondent. He referred to section 29(2) of the Act which states that:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            “</span></span><b><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:10.5pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">29 Registration of trade unions and employers organizations and privileges thereof</span></span></b></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:66px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-14.2pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:10.5pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">(1) Subject to this Act, any trade union, employers organization or federation may, if it so desires, apply for registration.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:66px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-13.65pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:10.5pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">(2) Every <u>trade union, employers organization or federation shall, upon registration, become a body corporate and shall in its corporate name be capable of suing and being sued</u>, of purchasing or otherwise acquiring, holding or alienating property, movable or immovable, and of doing any other act or thing which its constitution requires or permits it to do, or which a body corporate may, by law, do.” (Underlining mine for emphasis).</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:66px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-13.65pt"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Mr <i>Magogo</i> argued that the second respondent did not lose its autonomy or identity by virtue of its affiliation to UFAWUZ.  Counsel drew the court’s attention to clause 2.3 of the UFAWUZ constitution which states as follows:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:13px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">“Affiliates, including affiliates that are being oriented about the Federation, remain autonomous bodies governed by their own constitution but they must abide by this Constitution and policies of the Federation.”</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Mr <i>Magogo</i> further submitted that in light of the above provision, the deponent to the affidavit ought to have produced a resolution by the second respondent granting UFAWUZ authority to represent the second respondent. In the absence of such authority, the second respondent’s attitude to the application was unknown. To support his submissions on the point, counsel cited the cases of </span></span></span><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Madzivire &amp; Ors </span></span></span></i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">v<i> Zvarivadza &amp; Ors<a href="#_ftn9" name="_ftnref9" title="" id="_ftnref9"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><b><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[9]</span></span></span></b></span></span></a> </i></span></span></span><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">and <i>Dube </i>v<i> Premier Service Medical Aid Society &amp; Another<a href="#_ftn10" name="_ftnref10" title="" id="_ftnref10"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><b><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[10]</span></span></span></b></span></span></a>. </i>In the <i>Dube</i> case, the court followed the <i>ratio decidendi</i> in the <i>Madzivire &amp; Ors </i>v <i>Zvarivadza &amp; Ors</i> judgment where the court said:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:13px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-ZW">“A company, being a separate legal person from its directors, cannot be represented in a legal suit by a person who has not been authorised to do so. This is a well-established legal principle, which the courts cannot be ignored. It does not depend on the pleadings by either party. The fact that the person is the managing director of the company does not clothe him with the authority to sue on behalf of the company in the absence of any resolution authorising him to do so. The general rule is that directors of a company can only act validly when assembled at a board meeting. As exception to this rule is where a company has only one director who can perform all judicial acts without holding a full meeting.” </span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">As regards the third respondent, Mr <i>Magogo</i> submitted that the General Secretary who deposed to the opposing affidavit needed to attach a resolution of the third respondent’s Council to confirm his authority to represent the third respondent. That council was made up of representatives of the applicant, first and second respondents. Counsel submitted that the council was the ultimate authority in making a decision whether or not to oppose the application. On the strength of the <i>Madzivire </i>and the <i>Dube</i> cases, counsel submitted that it was incumbent upon the deponent to furnish the court with the authority to represent the third respondent. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            In his response on behalf of the second respondent, Mr <i>Madhuku</i> submitted that sections 27 and 29 of the Act had liberalized the rights of trade unions to legal representation. A trade union could surrender its rights of defence and representation in legal proceedings. That was the reason why the Act had gone out of its way to create an institution called a federation. Counsel referred to the case of <i>Baking and Allied Workers Union &amp; Four Others v National Employment Council for Food and Allied Industries and Seven Others<a href="#_ftn11" name="_ftnref11" title="" id="_ftnref11"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[11]</span></span></span></b></span></span></a>, </i>where the court determined that it was proper for a federation to represent its trade union members. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            Mr <i>Madhuku</i> further submitted that a notice of opposition need not be deposed by an official of the second respondent. He submitted that the applicant was raising a technical objection with no merit. He referred to r 58(4)(a) of the High Court Rules which provides that:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            “</span></span><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:10.5pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">(4) An affidavit filed with a written application—</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:10.5pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">(<i>a</i>) shall be made by the applicant or respondent, as the case may be, or by a person who can swear to the facts or averments set out in therein; and</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:10.5pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">(<i>b</i>) may be accompanied by documents verifying the facts or averments set out in the affidavit, and any reference in this Part to an affidavit shall be construed as including such documents.”</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">            <span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">In her response, Ms <i>Sande</i> for the third respondent submitted that no resolution was attached to the third respondent’s affidavit because the deponent derived his authority from the constitution. She referred to clause 7.3 of the third respondent’s constitution which provides as follows:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">“Whenever the exigencies of council business on a day to day basis demands, the General Secretary shall, make decisions necessary in the day to day administration of council affairs provided that such decisions shall be ratified in the meetings of the Executive Committee.”<a href="#_ftn12" name="_ftnref12" title="" id="_ftnref12"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[12]</span></span></span></span></span></a></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Counsel submitted that the urgency of litigation matters necessitated that the General Secretary be accorded such powers as the convening of Executive Committee meetings would delay the taking of decisions on such urgent matters. Ms <i>Sande</i> also referred to paragraph 21 of the third respondent’s constitution which authorizes the General Secretary or his appointed deputy to sign all documents on behalf of council. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            In reply Mr <i>Magogo </i>submitted that there was nothing in the law that allowed a federation to substitute itself for a party that was involved in litigation, unless the federation itself was cited. He further submitted that the interpretation of the law submitted on behalf of the second respondent would lead to an absurdity where for instance the party cited would be involved in litigation that it was unaware of. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">As regards the third respondent’s submission, Mr <i>Magogo</i> maintained the applicant’s position that an entity required a resolution permitting a deponent to represent it in litigation proceedings. He further submitted that the day to day business of an entity referred to in clause 7.3 of the respondent’s constitution did not apply to litigation proceedings. Counsel also submitted that the powers to sign all documents referred to in clause 21 did not extend to litigation documents. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            Section 29(2) of the Act provides that once a trade union, employers organization or federation is registered, it becomes </span></span></span><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">a body corporate and shall in its corporate name be capable of suing and being sued. An official who purports to represent such a body corporate must assert their source of authority to act in that manner. The current position of the law was reaffirmed by GARWE JA (as he then was) in <i>Dube</i> v<i> Premier Service Medical Aid Society &amp; Another<a href="#_ftn13" name="_ftnref13" title="" id="_ftnref13"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><b><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[13]</span></span></span></b></span></span></a>. </i>Having cited with approval the dictum in the <i>Madzvire &amp; Ors </i>v<i> Zvarivadza &amp; Ors, </i>the learned judge went on to state:</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-ZW">“A person who represents a legal entity, when challenged, must show that he is duly authorised to represent the entity. His mere claim that by virtue of the position he holds in such an entity he is duly authorised to represent the entity is not sufficient. He must produce a resolution of the board of that entity which confirms that the board is indeed aware of the proceedings and that it has given such a person the authority to act in the stead of the entity. I stress that the need to produce such proof is necessary only in those cases where the authority of the deponent is put in issue. This represents the current state of the law in this country.”</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            I associate myself with the exposition of the law as expounded by the learned judge. The starting point is that once registered, a trade union and a federation become bodies corporate capable of suing and being sued in their own right. If the federation is going to claim authority to represent a trade union, then that authority must be grounded in a resolution passed by the trade union, which in its own right is at law capable of suing and being sued. In my respectful view, it would be stretching the scope of s 35(a) (v) too wide, to accord it an interpretation that bestows on a federation the right to represent a trade union without the express authority of the trade union. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">As regards the allusion to r 58(4)(a) of the High Court rules, I do not believe that the provision substitutes the need for authority where that person is deposing to an affidavit in a representative capacity. Anyone would claim that they can swear positive to the facts as set out therein but without the requisite authority. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">For that reason, I am persuaded by Mr <i>Magogo’s</i> submission that the notice of opposition filed on behalf of the second respondent is irregular.  The notice of opposition purportedly filed on behalf of the second respondent by the General Secretary of UFAWUZ is hereby expunged from the record of proceedings. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            As regards the notice of opposition filed on behalf of the third respondent, I agree with Ms <i>Sande’s</i> submission that the starting point must be the constitution that established the third respondent. In my view clause 7.3 as read together with clause 21 of the third respondent’s constitution authorizes the General Secretary to represent the third respondent. The decisions made by the General Secretary in the exercise of his day to day functions of Council business as provided by clause 7.3 of the Constitution are subject to ratification by the Executive Committee. Clause 21 authorises the General Secretary to <i><u>“sign all documents on behalf of the Council</u>.</i>” In terms of clause 8.2 of the third respondent’s constitution, the Council of the third respondent <i>“shall meet at least twice annually at such times and places as the Chairperson or the General Secretary may from time to time determine</i>”.  I agree with the observations by my brother DEME J in the <i>Baking and Allied Workers Union &amp; Four Others v National Employment Council for Food and Allied Industries and Seven Others<a href="#_ftn14" name="_ftnref14" title="" id="_ftnref14"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[14]</span></span></span></b></span></span></a> </i>case that given the intervals at which the Council is obliged to meet, it comes as no surprise that the General Secretary is endowed with powers to make key decisions as well as sign all documents on behalf of the Council subject to ratification by the Executive Committee. I accordingly find the objection meritless and it is hereby dismissed. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">That a lawful process cannot be interdicted</span></span></span></i></b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">; </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">It was submitted on behalf of the first respondent that there was nothing unlawful about the submission of the CBA to the fourth respondent for registration in terms of section 79 of the Act. Mr <i>Madhuku </i>further submitted that the Act had an inbuilt process to regulate such matters. The court would have interfered with a lawful process if it granted the relief sought. In reply Mr <i>Magogo</i> submitted that the application challenged the authority of the first respondent to negotiate a CBA with the second respondent. He further submitted that a CBA that was not negotiated in terms of section 74(2) of the Act was not a lawful CBA. There was therefore nothing lawful about the whole process. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">It is settled law in this jurisdiction that this court cannot interdict a lawful process.<a href="#_ftn15" name="_ftnref15" title="" id="_ftnref15"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[15]</span></span></span></span></span></a> The applicant contends that the CBA was not lawfully concluded. The law which founds that process was violated. It is for that reason that the applicant seeks an interim relief suspending the registration of the CBA to allow the court to interrogate fully the lawfulness of the entire process. There is evidence on record in the form of correspondence between the parties that clearly points to a dispute. The applicant had anticipated that such dispute would be resolved through the intervention of the third and fourth respondents before the negotiations leading to the conclusion of the CBA could commence. It is also clear from the papers that such negotiations leading to the CBA were done behind the applicant’s back when all the parties were aware of the applicant’s interest in those negotiations. For that reason, it is the court’s view that there is merit in the applicant’s complaint which warrants the intervention of this court at this stage. I find no merit in the objection and it is accordingly dismissed.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Failure to exhaust domestic remedies </span></span></span></i></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            Mr <i>Madhuku</i> submitted that the applicant had not exhausted the domestic remedies provided under s 79(2) of the Act. Section 79(2) states that:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            “</span></span><b><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:10.5pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">79 Submission of collective bargaining agreements for approval or registration</span></span></b></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:10.5pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">(1) After negotiation, a collective bargaining agreement shall be submitted to the Registrar for registration.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:10.5pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">(2) Where any provision of a collective bargaining agreement appears to the Minister to be—</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:10.5pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">(<i>a</i>) inconsistent with this Act or any other enactment; or</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:10.5pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">(<i>b</i>) contrary to public interest;</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:10.5pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">(<i>c</i>) unreasonable or unfair, having regard to the respective rights of the parties;</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:10.5pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">he may direct the Registrar not to register such collective bargaining agreement until it has been suitably amended by the parties thereto.</span></span> </span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Ms <i>Sande</i> submitted that the applicant had prematurely approached this court as the process leading to the registration of the CBA had not been exhausted yet. The Registrar was still to call for representations from interested parties. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">In his response, Mr <i>Magogo </i>submitted that there was no provision in the Act which allowed a concerned party to make representations to the registering authority before the CBA can be registered. That left aggrieved party exposed. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">In <i>Makarudze and Another v Bungu and Two Others<a href="#_ftn16" name="_ftnref16" title="" id="_ftnref16"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[16]</span></span></span></b></span></span></a></i>, MAFUSIRE J made the following pertinent observations about domestic remedies:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:76px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-ZW">“The general view is that it is discouraged for a litigant to rush to this court before he or she has exhausted such domestic procedures or remedies as may be available to his or her situation in any given case. He or she is expected to obtain relief through the available domestic channels unless there are good reasons for not doing so: see <i>Nokuthula Moyo </i>v <i>Norman Gwindingwi NO &amp; Anor</i><a href="#_ftn17" name="_ftnref17" title="" id="_ftnref17"><sup><sup><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:11.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[17]</span></span></span></sup></sup></a>. </span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:76px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><u><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-ZW">However, it is also the general view that the domestic remedies must be able to provide effective redress to the complaint</span></u><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-ZW">. Furthermore, the alleged unlawfulness complained of must not be such as would have undermined the domestic remedies themselves: see <i>Tutani </i>v<i> Minister of Labour &amp; Ors</i><a href="#_ftn18" name="_ftnref18" title="" id="_ftnref18"><sup><sup><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:11.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[18]</span></span></span></sup></sup></a>; <i>Moyo </i>v<i> Forestry Commission</i><a href="#_ftn19" name="_ftnref19" title="" id="_ftnref19"><sup><sup><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:11.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[19]</span></span></span></sup></sup></a> and <i>Musandu </i>v<i> Chairperson of Cresta Lodge Disciplinary and Grievance Committee</i><a href="#_ftn20" name="_ftnref20" title="" id="_ftnref20"><sup><sup><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:11.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[20]</span></span></span></sup></sup></a>. <u>The court will not insist on an applicant first exhausting domestic remedies where they do not confer better and cheaper benefits: <i>Moyo’s </i>case, <i>supra</i>, at p 192</u>.”(Underlining for emphasis). </span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:76px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The observations are quite apposite. There is no point in insisting on the utilization of domestic remedies that do not accord a litigant the kind of reprieve that he would summarily obtain through an approach to courts of law. Section 79 (2) of the Act is only invoked by the Minister if he is of the considered view that the circumstances set out in paragraphs (a) – (c) exist. That provision does not give an aggrieved party the leeway to approach the Registrar. I find no merit in the objection and it is accordingly dismissed.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Lack of Urgency</span></span></span></i></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            Mr <i>Madhuku</i> submitted that the matter was not urgent. The applicant did not explain why it did not approach the court around 7 February 2022 when it became clear that there was a dispute between the parties. The applicant had also not demonstrated the prejudice it would suffer if the matter was not dealt with on an urgent basis. Counsel further submitted that the imminence of the registration of the CBA was not the basis of the application. Rather, it was premised on the need to have the dispute resolved expeditiously. Mr <i>Madhuku</i> further submitted that urgency was not just confined to the time factor. A matter was also urgent with regards to the consequences that would befall the applicant if the matter was not treated as urgent. The applicant had not alluded to any such adverse consequences. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            In reply, Mr <i>Magogo</i> submitted that the urgency of the matter stemmed from the memorandum of 24 March 2024 from the third respondent which advised that the CBA had been concluded, and had since been forwarded to the fourth respondent for gazetting. The applicant could not have acted earlier than that.   </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="background:white"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black">The question of urgency must be considered in the context of the circumstances surrounding the dispute. These circumstances are peculiar to each case, and for that reason, each case must be considered on its own merits. The remarks by </span></span></span></span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">MAKARAU JP <span style="color:black">(as she then was) in <i>Document Support Centre (Pvt) Ltd</i> v <i>Mapuvire<a href="#_ftn21" name="_ftnref21" title="" id="_ftnref21"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black">[21]</span></span></span></span></b></span></span></a></i>  are apposite in that regard. She said:</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:13px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="background:white"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.5pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black">“………In my view, urgent applications are those where if the courts fail to act, the applicants may well be within their rights to dismissively suggest to the court that it should not bother to act subsequently as the position would have become irreversible and irreversibly so to the prejudice of the applicant”. </span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black">I associate myself with the views of the learned judge. The court will not ignore the consequences attendant upon a failure to deal with a matter on an urgent basis. Of course, adverse consequences to the applicant’s cause will not save an applicant where it is clear that the applicant indeed sat on its laurels and was only jolted into action by the impending harm. That cannot be said of the applicant in this case. </span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black">Paragraph 1 of the certificate of urgency as read with paragraph 25 of the founding affidavit shows that what triggered an approach to this court on an urgent basis was the memorandum of 24 March 2022. Prior to that date, there was communication between the applicant and third respondent in connection with the dispute. The third respondent on its part also engaged the fourth respondent and copied such communication to the applicant. It certainly came as a shock for the applicant to receive communication advising of the conclusion of the CBA when all along it was waiting for the resolution of matters that would pave way for the commencement of the collective bargaining negotiations.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black">This court is satisfied that the matter is urgent and that the applicant did not sit on its laurels. It approached the court immediately upon realising the CBA had been placed before the fourth respondent for registration and gazetting. If this matter is not dealt with urgently, then the impugned CBA will be registered before the applicant’s concerns are addressed. The preliminary point has no merit and is accordingly dismissed. </span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black">MERITS </span></span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black">The purpose of an interdict was set out in<b> </b></span></span></span></span><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Mayor Logistics (Pvt) Ltd </span></span></span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">v<i> Zimbabwe Revenue     Authority<a href="#_ftn22" name="_ftnref22" title="" id="_ftnref22"><b><sup><b><sup><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[22]</span></span></span></sup></b></sup></b></a><b>, </b></i>where MALABA DCJ (as he then was) said:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">“An interdict is ordinarily granted to prevent continuing or future conduct which is harmful to a <i>prima facie</i> right, pending final determination of that right by a court of law.  Its object is to avoid a situation in which, by the time the right is finally determined in favour of the applicant, it has been injured to the extent that the harm cannot be repaired by the grant of the right.  </span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:13px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">It is axiomatic that the interdict is for the protection of an existing right.  There has to be proof of the existence of a <i>prima facie</i> right.  <u>It is also axiomatic that the <i>prima facie</i> right is protected from unlawful conduct which is about to infringe it.  </u>An interdict cannot be granted against past invasions of a right nor can there be an interdict against lawful conduct.  <i>Airfield investments (Pvt) Ltd </i>v <i>Minister of Lands&amp; Ors</i> 2004(1) ZLR 511(S); <i>Stauffer Chemicals </i>v<i> Monsato Company</i> 1988(1) SA 895;  <i>Rudolph &amp; Anor </i>v<i> Commissioner for Inland Revenue &amp; Ors</i> 1994(3) SA 771.”  (Underlining for emphasis). </span> </span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">It is common cause that the applicant is registered as an employer association in terms of the Act. Such registration entitles the applicant to be part of the collective bargaining negotiations involving its membership and trade unions in the Food and Allied Industry (Milling Sub-sector). The birth of the first respondent led to a dispute regarding its status on the eve of the collective bargaining negotiations. The dispute necessitated the verification of its membership before the stakeholders in the sector could meet to commence negotiations. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="Default" style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black">In <i>Airfield Investments (Pvt) Ltd </i>v<i> Minister of Lands, Agriculture and Rural Resettlement &amp; Ors.<a href="#_ftn23" name="_ftnref23" title="" id="_ftnref23"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><b><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black">[23]</span></span></span></span></b></span></span></a> </i>MALABA JA (as he then was) set out the requirements for the granting of a temporary interdict as follows<span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:11.5pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%">: </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="Default" style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:11.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW">“It must be borne in mind that an interim interdict is an extraordinary remedy, the granting of which is at the discretion of the court hearing the application for the relief. There are, however, requirements which an applicant for interim relief must satisfy before it can be granted. In <i>L F Boshoff Investments (Pty) Ltd </i>v<i> Cape Town Municipality </i>1969 (2) SA 256 (C) at 267 A-F, CORBETT J (as he then was) said an applicant for such temporary relief must show: </span></span></span></span></p> <p class="Default" style="margin-left:76px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-20.7pt"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:11.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW">“(a) that the right which is the subject matter of the main action and which he seeks to protect by means of interim relief is clear or, if not clear, is <i>prima facie </i>established though open to some doubt; </span></span></span></span></p> <p class="Default" style="margin-left:66px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-13.65pt"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:11.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW">(b) that, if the right is only <i>prima facie </i>established, there is a well-grounded apprehension of irreparable harm to the applicant if the interim relief is not granted and he ultimately succeeds in establishing his right; </span></span></span></span></p> <p class="Default" style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:11.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW">(c) that the balance of convenience favours the granting of interim relief; and </span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt; margin-bottom:13px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">(d) that the applicant has no other satisfactory remedy.”</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">From a consideration of the papers and the submissions by the parties, this court is satisfied that the applicant has managed to establish a <i>prima facie</i> case by virtue of its registration as an employer association. It is entitled to participate in the affairs of the third respondent as a representative of its membership. It is common cause that negotiations which resulted in the birth of the CBA that is now before the fourth respondent for registration and gazetting were done without the applicant’s input. The negotiations were held at a time when both third and fourth respondents were seized with the matter regarding the membership status of the first respondent. The meeting of 7 February 2022 which was organized to discuss the sharing of seats to include the first respondent was deferred to allow the verification of its membership. The postponement was also meant to verify the statuses of the applicant and GMAZ amongst other things. In the court’s view the applicant has managed to demonstrate that there is a well-grounded apprehension of irreparable harm if the CBA is registered before the pending issues are resolved.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The balance of convenience favours the granting of the interim relief. The applicant asserts that it represents the majority of the employers in the sector, a claim that was not convincingly refuted by the respondents. It is only proper that it be represented in any CBA negotiations whose outcome will bind its membership. The court is also satisfied that the applicant has no other satisfactory remedy. Once the CBA is registered and gazette, it becomes implementable. It has to be complied with by some employers that may not have been represented in its formulation. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">It is for the foregoing reasons that the court is satisfied that the applicant is entitled to the relief it seeks. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Accordingly it is ordered that:</span></span></span>  </b></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:10px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Pending determination of this matter on the return date, the applicant is granted the following interim relief<span lang="EN-ZW" style="color:black" xml:lang="EN-ZW">:-</span></span></span></span></p> <ol><li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">The registration of the Collective Bargaining Agreement: Food and Allied Industries (Milling Sub-sector) between first and second Respondent dated 22 March 2022 be and is hereby stayed;</span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">The first respondent be and is hereby temporarily interdicted from participating in any collective bargaining negotiations for the Milling sub-sector.</span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:13px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">This provisional order shall be served on the respondents by the Sheriff of the High Court of Zimbabwe or by the applicants’ legal practitioners</span></span></span> </span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Takawira Law Chambers</span></span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">, applicant’s legal practitioners</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Lovemore Madhuku Lawyers,</span></span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"> first and second respondents’ legal practitioners</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Sande Legal Practice, </span></span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">third Respondent’s<i> </i>legal practitioners </span></span></span></span></span></p> <div>  <hr align="left" size="1" width="33%" /><div id="ftn1"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText"><span style="font-size:10pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><a href="#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1" title="" id="_ftn1"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[1]</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></a><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"> [<i>Chapter 28:01</i>]</span></span></span></span></p> </div> <div id="ftn2"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:10pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><a href="#_ftnref2" name="_ftn2" title="" id="_ftn2"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[2]</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></a><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"> <i>Nhari v Mugabe &amp; Others</i> SC 161/20; <i>Chingombe v City of Harare</i> SC 177/20; <i>Baking and Allied Workers Union &amp; Four Others v National Employment Council for Food and Allied Industries and Seven Others</i> HH 148/22</span></span></span></span></p> </div> <div id="ftn3"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText"><span style="font-size:10pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><a href="#_ftnref3" name="_ftn3" title="" id="_ftn3"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[3]</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></a><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"> HH 180/16</span></span></span></span></p> </div> <div id="ftn4"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText"><span style="font-size:10pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><a href="#_ftnref4" name="_ftn4" title="" id="_ftn4"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[4]</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></a><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"> HH 38/18</span></span></span></span></p> </div> <div id="ftn5"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText"><span style="font-size:10pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><a href="#_ftnref5" name="_ftn5" title="" id="_ftn5"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,sans-serif">[5]</span></span></span></span></span></a> <i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:9.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Nhari v Mugabe &amp; Ors </span></span></i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:9.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">(supra)</span></span></span></span></p> </div> <div id="ftn6"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText"><span style="font-size:10pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><a href="#_ftnref6" name="_ftn6" title="" id="_ftn6"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[6]</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></a><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"> HH 21/21</span></span></span></span></p> </div> <div id="ftn7"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText"><span style="font-size:10pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><a href="#_ftnref7" name="_ftn7" title="" id="_ftn7"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[7]</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></i></span></a><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"> Stylianou and 2 Others v Mubita and 25 Others SC 7/17</span></span></i></span></span></p> </div> <div id="ftn8"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText"><span style="font-size:10pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><a href="#_ftnref8" name="_ftn8" title="" id="_ftn8"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[8]</span></span></span></span></span></span></a><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US"> supra </span></span></span></p> </div> <div id="ftn9"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText"><span style="font-size:10pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><a href="#_ftnref9" name="_ftn9" title="" id="_ftn9"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,sans-serif">[9]</span></span></span></span></span></span></a> <span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:9.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">2006(1) ZLR 514 (S); </span></span></span></span></p> </div> <div id="ftn10"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText"><span style="font-size:10pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><a href="#_ftnref10" name="_ftn10" title="" id="_ftn10"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[10]</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></a><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"> SC 73/19</span></span></span></span></p> </div> <div id="ftn11"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText"><span style="font-size:10pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><a href="#_ftnref11" name="_ftn11" title="" id="_ftn11"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[11]</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></a><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"> Supra </span></span></span></span></p> </div> <div id="ftn12"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText"><span style="font-size:10pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><a href="#_ftnref12" name="_ftn12" title="" id="_ftn12"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[12]</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></a><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"> Page 64 of the application</span></span></span></span></p> </div> <div id="ftn13"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText"><span style="font-size:10pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><a href="#_ftnref13" name="_ftn13" title="" id="_ftn13"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[13]</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></a><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"> supra </span></span></span></span></p> </div> <div id="ftn14"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText"><span style="font-size:10pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><a href="#_ftnref14" name="_ftn14" title="" id="_ftn14"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[14]</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></a><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"> Page 8 of the judgment. </span></span></span></span></p> </div> <div id="ftn15"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText"><span style="font-size:10pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><a href="#_ftnref15" name="_ftn15" title="" id="_ftn15"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[15]</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></a><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"> <i>Judicial Services Commission v Zibani &amp; Others </i>SC 68/17<i>; Mayor Logistics (Pvt)    Ltd v Zimbabwe      Revenue     Authority </i>CCZ 7/14 at page 8 of the judgment </span></span></span></span></p> </div> <div id="ftn16"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText"><span style="font-size:10pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><a href="#_ftnref16" name="_ftn16" title="" id="_ftn16"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[16]</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></a><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"> At pages 9-10 of the judgment</span></span></span></span></p> </div> <div id="ftn17"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:10pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><a href="#_ftnref17" name="_ftn17" title="" id="_ftn17"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[17]</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></a><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"> HB168/11; See also <i>Musandu v Cresta Lodge Disciplinary and Grievance Committee</i> HH 115/94; <i>Moyo v Forestry Commission</i> 1996 (1) ZLR 173 (H); <i>Tuso v City of Harare</i> 2004 (1) ZLR 1 (H); <i>Chawara v Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe</i> 2006 (1) ZLR 525 (H) and <i>Tutani v Minister of Labour and Others</i> 1987 (2) ZLR 88 (H)</span></span></span></span></p> </div> <div id="ftn18"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:10pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><a href="#_ftnref18" name="_ftn18" title="" id="_ftn18"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[18]</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></a><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"> 1987 (2) ZLR 88 (H) at p 95D</span></span></span></span></p> </div> <div id="ftn19"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:10pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><a href="#_ftnref19" name="_ftn19" title="" id="_ftn19"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[19]</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></a><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"> 1996 (1) ZLR 173 (HC), at p 191</span></span></span></span></p> </div> <div id="ftn20"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:10pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><a href="#_ftnref20" name="_ftn20" title="" id="_ftn20"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[20]</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></a><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"> HH 115/94</span></span></span></span></p> </div> <div id="ftn21"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText"><span style="font-size:10pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><a href="#_ftnref21" name="_ftn21" title="" id="_ftn21"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[21]</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></a> <span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">2006 (1) ZLR 232 (H) 243G<span style="color:#4a4a4a">; 244A-C</span></span></span></span></span></p> </div> <div id="ftn22"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText"><span style="font-size:10pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><a href="#_ftnref22" name="_ftn22" title="" id="_ftn22"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[22]</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></a><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"> CCZ 7/14 at page 8 of the judgment </span></span></span></span></p> </div> <div id="ftn23"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText"><span style="font-size:10pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><a href="#_ftnref23" name="_ftn23" title="" id="_ftn23"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,sans-serif">[23]</span></span></span></span></span></a> <i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">2004 (1) ZLR 511 (S) </span></span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">at 517 C-E</span></span></span></span></p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="views-element-container"><div class="view view-eva view-download-conditional view-id-download_conditional view-display-id-entity_view_1 js-view-dom-id-809840934e2f21075a85790184392993795e9e8f87bd32e1db382cfa5931ecaa"> <div><div class="views-field views-field-views-conditional-field"><span class="field-content"><p class="text-align-right">HH 263-22</p> <p class="text-align-right">HC 2036/22</p> <p> </p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">GRAIN MILLING EMPLOYERS ASSOCIATION OF ZIMBABWE  </span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">versus</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">SMALL TO MEDIUM ENTERPRISES ASSOCIATION OF ZIMBABWE                     </span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">and</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">MILLING INDUSTRY WORKERS UNION  </span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">and</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">NATIONAL EMPLOYMENT COUNCIL FOR THE FOOD AND ALLIED INDUSTRIES </span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">and </span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">REGISTRAR OF LABOUR N.O.  </span></span></span></span></span></p> <p> </p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">MUSITHU J</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">HARARE, 30 March &amp; 5, 14 &amp; 21 April 2022</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Urgent Chamber Application-Interdict </span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">B. Magogo, </span></span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">for the applicant</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">L. Madhuku, </span></span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">for the 1<sup>st</sup> and 2<sup>nd</sup> respondents</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">J. Sande, </span></span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">for the 3<sup>rd</sup> respondent</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            MUSITHU J: The applicant seeks interim relief staying the registration of a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) negotiated between the first and second respondents. The relief sought is set out in the draft order as follows:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">            <span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">“<b>TERMS OF THE FINAL ORDER SOUGHT</b></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">That you show cause to this Honourable Court, why a final Order should not be made in the following terms:-</span></span></span></span></p> <ol><li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">Applicant be and is hereby declared to be a duly registered employer’s association for the third Respondent’s Milling sub-sector with competence to negotiate collective bargaining agreements in the undertaking.</span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">Pending verification of its membership, the first Respondent is hereby declared an incompetent party for purposes of negotiating collective bargaining agreements on behalf of employers in the third Respondent’s Milling Subsector.</span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">The Collective Bargaining Agreement: Food and Allied Industries (Milling Sub-sector) between first and second Respondent dated 22 March 2022 be and is hereby declared to be null and void and consequently incapable of registration with the fourth Respondent.</span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">The fourth Respondent be and is hereby ordered and directed not to register the Collective Bargaining Agreement: Food and Allied Industries (Milling Sub-sector) between first and second Respondent dated 22 March 2022.</span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">Alternatively; if, at the time of issuance of this order fourth Respondent has already registered the Collective Bargaining Agreement: Food and Allied Industries (Milling Sub-sector) between first and second Respondent dated 22 March 2022, then in that event such registration be and is hereby set aside.</span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">The first and second Respondent shall, jointly and severally the one paying the other to be absolved, pay Applicant’s costs of suit on the attorney client scale.</span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:72px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">INTERIM RELIEF GRANTED</span></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">Pending the finalisation of the matter on the return day, Applicant is granted the following relief:-</span></span></span></span></p> <ol><li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">The registration of the Collective Bargaining Agreement: Food and Allied Industries (Milling Sub-sector) between first and second Respondent dated 22 March 2022 be and is hereby stayed;</span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">First Respondent be and is hereby temporarily interdicted from further participating in any collective bargaining negotiations for the Milling sub-sector.</span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:72px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">SERVICE OF THIS PROVISIONAL ORDER</span></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">The Sheriff or alternatively Applicant’s legal practitioners be and is hereby granted leave to serve this interim order on the Respondent.</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">”</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The application was opposed by the first to third respondents. The applicant is an employer association registered in terms of the Labour Act (the Act).<a href="#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1" title="" id="_ftnref1"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[1]</span></span></span></span></span></a> The first respondent is also an employer association registered in terms of the Act. The second respondent is a trade union also registered in terms of the Act. The third respondent is an employment council registered in terms of the Act. It regulates the activities of its affiliated members. The fourth respondent is an official appointed in terms of the Act. His responsibilities includes the registration and supervision of the activities of trade unions and employment councils. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The Applicant’s Case</span></span></span></i></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            Applicant was registered by the fourth respondent as an employers’ association on 29 December 1998. Over the years, it has participated in collective bargaining negotiations on behalf of employers in the milling sector. The applicant claims that at some point it incorporated a separate legal entity known as the Grain Millers Association of Zimbabwe (Private) Limited (GMAZ). That entity has the mandate to handle labour related matters that concerns the applicant and its membership. The applicant claims that although the two entities are distinct legal personalities, their leadership is substantially similar. As a result of this position, there has been a conflation of the two by stakeholders in the industry.  The applicant avers that such conflation did not cause any problems until the birth of the first respondent. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The applicant claims that the first respondent is a product of disgruntled former employees of the applicant. It acquired registration status as an employer association in 2021. Such registration entitled it to admission as a member of third respondent provided it met certain criteria established under the third respondent’s constitution. The secondment of its members to committees of the third respondent was subject to the proportional sharing of seats with existing employers’ associations after verification of its membership. Soon after its registration, the first responded pushed for its inclusion in the collective bargaining council, as well as demanding the sharing of seats in third respondent’s committees. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">A meeting was convened for 7 February 2022, at which the seat sharing and verification process was supposed to be done. At the meeting, the question of the membership and representation of the applicant and GMAZ arose, with the first respondent alleging that the applicant was now defunct. This was on account of the fact that the applicant was at all material times represented in the council by members of GMAZ. The third respondent was requested to make a ruling on the issue of the applicant’s status in the council before the verification exercise could commence. The third respondent’s chairperson declined to make a ruling on the issue in light of the applicant’s registration. The issue was referred to a representative of the fourth respondent who was also in attendance. That representative also declined to deal with the matter at that point as the complaint had not been formally registered with the fourth respondent’s office. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The first respondent sought an adjournment of the meeting to allow it time to take up the matter with the fourth respondent. Accordingly no membership verification was then carried out. The applicant claims it had brought along to the meeting, a complete register of its own membership. It further claims that the first respondent failed to produce a register of its own members. The applicant claims that the first respondent only had one member. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Following the aborted meeting, on 11 February 2022, the third respondent’s General Secretary wrote to the fourth respondent seeking his intervention in the matter. The letter reads in part as follows:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">“RE: STALEMATE IN THE MILLING INDUSTRY </span></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">………………………..</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">We hereby seek your intervention in resolving the verification of Registration Certificates and other attendant issues among the Milling Industry parties.</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">We thank you for your usual support and guidance.</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">……………….”</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The fourth respondent responded through a letter of 17 March 2022. The letter reads in part as follows:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">“REF: VERIFICATION OF REGISTRATION CERTIFICATES OF PARTIES TO THE MILLING INDUSTRY</span></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">            ……………………………………</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">Reference is made to your letter dated 11 February 2022 in which you requested for our intervention through the verification of Registration Certificates among milling industry parties. May you please clarify the sort of intervention required and also provide the names of parties whose Registration certificates you require.</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">Please be guided accordingly</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">………………..”</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The applicant claims that the letter did not elicit a response from the third respondent. The applicant asserts that it received an alert from one of its members that there was communication from the United Food and Allied Workers Union of Zimbabwe, (UFAWUZ) suggesting that the meeting of 7 February 2022 was all but conclusive as regards the matters discussed thereat. The letter dated 8 February 2022, and addressed to the third respondent read in part as follows:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><u><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">“RESUMPTION OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING MEETINGS IN THE MILLING INDUSTRY SUBSECTOR UNDERTAKING: WAGE STALEMATE FOR 2021 AND GOING FORWARD</span></u></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">Following Trade Union enquiry on sharing of seats between Grain Millers Association of Zimbabwe and Small to Medium Millers Employers Association of Zimbabwe, and the feedback thereto and notwithstanding the 2021 wage stalemate, the Trade Union observes the following:</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"> </p> <ol><li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">The issue of whether Grain Millers Association of Zimbabwe is a registered employer Association or not is a fundamental issue in that the Trade Union at law is supposed to deal and work with a duly registered employers Association, registered in the industry or Subsector undertaking. This conclusion ought not and should not be construed as Trade Union interference in the intra challenges within the employer parties.</span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:72px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">It is a simple affirmation of what the law states and requires.</span></span></span></span></p> <ol start="2"><li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">The Trade Union is available and ready to resume wage negotiations as soon as employer party is properly constituted.</span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">We further acknowledge the feedback of the meeting of the employer party on sharing of seats, which feedback shows that the employer party notwithstanding some housekeeping issues is now properly constituted.</span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">………………….</span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">The so called dispute between the two employer Associations cannot and will not scuttle any prospects of wage negotiations in the Milling Industry going forward.</span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">The so called dispute between the two can still be resolved while wage negotiations and other subsector undertaking related issues are ongoing.</span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:72px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">It is against this background and observation that the Trade Union wishes to inform the General Secretary of the N.E.C, the following:-</span></span></span></span></p> <ol start="7"><li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">There is a registered employer Association whose certificate of registration is not subject to dispute by all.</span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">The workers in the Milling Industry can no longer wait for the resolution of the so called dispute while they wallow in employer induced poverty as their wage was last reviewed in October 2020.</span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">Milling Industry Workers Union has thus resolved that forthwith they begin negotiations and other subsector undertaking related business with an Employer Association whose certificate of registration is not in dispute. In line with the lawful position the Union will not deal with an Employers Association without a registration certificate or one which is renting a certificate of a now defunct employer Association.</span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">In light of this take notice that a meeting for Collective Bargaining by agreement has been slated for Friday 11 February 2022 at a venue to be communicated.</span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:72px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">…………….” </span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The letter was copied to both third and fourth respondents. Neither reacted to the letter. The applicant approached its legal practitioners, who on 17 February 2022 wrote to the third respondent reiterating the applicant’s position on the matter. The material part of the letter reads as follows:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">“RE: NEC FOOD MILLING SUBSECTOR-EMPLOYER PARTIES SHARING OF SEATS</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US"> ………………………</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">Pursuant to the meeting that was held on the 7<sup>th</sup> of February 2022, at the NEC offices for sharing of seats between the employer parties in the milling sub-sector in terms of which the meeting was adjourned because the Small to Medium Millers Association of Zimbabwe SMMAZ challenged the presence of our client in the meeting. The challenge was based on the allegation that ours did not exist and was not entitled to be in the said meeting because they had specifically requested to meet with GMAZ. We wish to expressly state that we stand as directed by the Chairman that he did not have any authority to adjudicate on the legality of the existence of GMEAZ and therefore directed any aggrieved parties to follow the legal channels to have the issues determined.</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">Despite the clear directive by the Chairman, SMMAZ proceeded to meet with U.F.A.W.U.Z and misled the union that it was representing the employers’ organization and misrepresented that it had taken up all seat in the subsector for the employer party. This is evident from the letter to the NEC by the Trade Union dated 8 February (See annexure A) in terms of which paragraph 3 stated that the employer party had been properly constituted. Seat where not shared at the meeting for sharing of seats so one fails to understand how the trade union asserts that the employer organization was properly constituted. </span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">This is definitely not a true record of what transpired because parties did not share any seat after the same SMMAZ sought an adjournment of the meeting. SMMAZ cannot legally take up all seats because it represents only 1 employer, the other company it purported to represent denies being it member and we have confirmation to that effect. On what basis and on whose mandate does it purport to represent employers. The provisions of the NEC Food and Allied Industries Constitution Amendment No 1 is clear. Clause 5.3 is clear regarding sharing of seats and states that same is done on verifiable employership for each registered employer organization party.</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">Our client is a registered employer organization and on what basis is SMMAZ allowed to meet with the trade Union and state that it occupies all seats in clear disregard of our client which has 56 members in the Northern Region and 43 members in the Southern Region……………………………</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">We want to clearly state it and have it on record that any meetings and negotiations done by SMMAZ with unions in the absence of our client are illegal and therefore void. Any outcomes thereof will not bind our clients’ members as SMMAZ does not have mandate to represent our clients’ members. Our client is legally registered and the allegation that it is defunct is yet to be confirmed by a competent court of all. …………………………………………………</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">We call upon your competent office to call SMMAZ to order and to put the record straight especially with the Unions because it is misrepresenting the outcome of the meeting which you chaired. SMMAZ should forthwith stop misrepresenting to the Unions as its behaviour is criminal and illegal, the trade unions should be directed by the NEC as it is the regulating body over all parties. If the behaviour and illegal action does not stop, we want to have it on record that our client will approach the court for relief against the rogue elements that continue on the illegalities………” </span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The letter was copied to GMAZ, first and fourth respondents and UFAWUZ. The applicant claims that none of the parties responded to the letter, and it assumed the parties were content with the position as expressed in the aforementioned letter. The applicant asserts that it also took comfort in the belief that the parties concerns were being attended to by the fourth respondent. It therefore came as shock when the applicant received a memorandum from the third respondent addressed directly to the applicant’s members, the NEC chairperson, the fourth respondent and the UFAWUZ. The memorandum which was inadvertently dated 24 March 2024, reads as follows:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><u><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">“REF: MILLING INDUSTRY COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT</span></u></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">I am glad to announce that the Collective Bargaining Agreement for the Milling Industry sub-sector undertaking for the period January 2022 to March 2022 has been concluded as per the copy attached. The agreement has since been sent to the Registrar for gazetting. </span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">………..”</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The attached CBA made reference to a meeting that was held on 22 March 2022, where the new structure for wages and allowances was agreed upon. That memorandum drew the ire of the applicant. The applicant reacted by writing to both third and fourth respondents querying the circumstances under which the agreement was reached in the absence of the applicant who represented the majority of the employers in the sector. It is that communication that triggered an approach to this court on an urgent basis for the interim relief sought herein. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">First Respondent’s Opposition</span></span></span></i></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            The first respondent’s opposing affidavit was deposed to by one Alois Sengwe in his capacity as National Administrator of first respondent. He raised the following in <i>limine</i>: absence of jurisdiction; that a lawful process cannot be interdicted; failure to exhaust domestic remedies and lack of urgency. I will deal with these latter in the judgment.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            As regards the merits, it was averred that the applicant had not laid out a case for the relief it sought. It had failed to plead the four requirements of an interdict as required by the law. In any case, the applicant had no cause before the court as it had not operated as an employers’ association for the past six years. The applicant had not participated in any CBA for a couple of years now. The applicant was now defunct and the objections that had been made concerning its status were valid. The officials behind the applicant were the same people behind the GMAZ. It was the entity that used to participate in the affairs of the third respondent, albeit as an unregistered association. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            First respondent also contended that the <i>declaraturs </i>sought were meaningless, primarily because the CBA was protected by the principle of private of contract. The applicant could not seek to derive rights from an agreement that it was not party to. First respondent was registered in terms of the law, and as such it enjoyed the full protection of the law. Further, the court could not be invited to interfere with the statutory functions of the fourth respondent. No irreparable harm had been established by the applicant. The balance of convenience favoured non-interference by the court as the livelihoods of affected employees were at stake. The court was urged to dismiss the application with costs on the legal practitioner and client scale.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Second Respondent’s Opposition </span></span></span></i></b>     </span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            The opposing affidavit was deposed to by the General Secretary of the United Food and Allied Workers Union of Zimbabwe (UFAWUZ). It is a federation of Trade Unions to which the second respondent is affiliated. A resolution of the National Executive of UFAWUZ confirming such authority to depose to the affidavit was also attached. The opposing affidavit raised similar preliminary points as those raised by the first respondent. As regards the merits, the second respondent associated itself with the responses made on behalf of the first respondent. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Third Respondent’s Opposition </span></span></span></i></b><b> </b></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The opposing affidavit raised two preliminary points at the outset. These are absence of jurisdiction and failure to exhaust domestic remedies. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">As regards the merits, it was contended that the applicant was all but defunct as officials of GMAZ actively participated in the affairs of the applicant. It was further averred that although the third respondent had sought the fourth respondent’s intervention in the dispute, it was entirely up to the parties to push for a resolution of the matter as the aggrieved parties. That explained why the fourth respondent’s letter requesting further details on the dispute did not receive a response from the third respondent. Third respondent averred that the CBA was adopted following a meeting held on 22 March 2022. The applicant was allegedly made aware of the meeting through a telephone call to a Mr Shumba. Verification of the attendees was done and negotiations proceeded thereafter. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The third respondent averred that the applicant had failed to establish its right to participate in the CBA. Such right did not exist as its membership was not even verified. The applicant had failed to establish a <i>prima facie</i> case. Neither did it have any existing, future or contingent right arising from the unregistered CBA. The CBA had not yet been operationalized, and as such no rights accrued therefrom. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">It was also averred that the matter was not urgent. The CBA which was being challenged had not yet been registered. There was nothing on record to show that its registration was imminent. The fourth respondent who was aware of the dispute had not yet applied her mind to the agreement. The internal remedies accorded by the labour laws had not been exhausted. Representations could still be made to the fourth respond to block the registration of the CBA. The urgency was self-created. The application was bad in law. The applicant had not made out a case for the granting of the relief sought. The court was urged to dismiss the application with costs on a higher scale. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">At the commencement of the oral submissions, Mr <i>Magogo </i>for the applicant submitted that the second respondent was not properly before the court as its opposing affidavit was deposed to and filed by a party that had no interest in the proceedings. This objection shall be determined together with other objections raised on behalf of the respondents. The court must however consider the question of whether it has jurisdiction to entertain this application at the outset. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">SUBMISSIONS AND ANALYSIS ON THE PRELIMINARY POINTS </span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Jurisdiction </span></span></span></i></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Mr <i>Madhuku</i> for the first and second respondents submitted that what was before the court was clearly a labour dispute. The applicant was seeking the resolution of a dispute that had arisen in the milling industry. The Act provided an inbuilt mechanism for the resolution of such disputes. The Act provided for the negotiation and registration of a CBA. The same Act also established the office of the fourth respondent.  Mr <i>Madhuku</i> further submitted that the applicant ought to have utilized the procedure for the resolution of labour disputes provided under s 93 of the Labour Act. The court was referred to decisions of the Superior Courts which have resolved that the High Court has no jurisdiction over labour matters.<a href="#_ftn2" name="_ftnref2" title="" id="_ftnref2"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[2]</span></span></span></span></span></a></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">In her submissions on the same point, Ms <i>Sande</i> for the third respondent averred that the manner in which the application was couched suggested that applicant’s complaint was so much about the procedural defects that afflicted the manner in which the CBA was negotiated. The substantive relief sought on the return date was clearly one obtainable through a review disguised as a <i>declaratur</i>. The court was referred to the cases of <i>Kuchena v Scientific Industrial and Development Centre<a href="#_ftn3" name="_ftnref3" title="" id="_ftnref3"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[3]</span></span></span></b></span></span></a></i> and <i>Kabichi v Minerals Marketing Corporation of Zimbabwe<a href="#_ftn4" name="_ftnref4" title="" id="_ftnref4"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[4]</span></span></span></b></span></span></a></i>, in which this court declined to exercise its inherent jurisdiction, asserting that labour matters must remain the domain of the Labour Court. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">In reply, Mr <i>Magogo</i> submitted that this court must be slow in declining jurisdiction in labour matters where the Act makes no provision for the resolution of a labour related dispute between the parties. He further submitted that the Act did not make provision for the resolution of disputes of this nature and for that reason, the inherent jurisdiction of this court was not ousted. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">This court is aware that the position of the law is now settled that the High Court cannot exercise its original jurisdiction in labour matters.<a href="#_ftn5" name="_ftnref5" title="" id="_ftnref5"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[5]</span></span></span></span></span></a> There remains residual matters in respect of which the High Court is still imbued with jurisdiction to deal with such matters notwithstanding the fact that they fall within the domain of labour matters. In determining whether the dispute before it is exclusively a labour matter, the court must not look at the relief sought by a litigant alone. It must have regard to the grounds upon which the application is premised as substantiated by the material averments of evidence made in the founding affidavit. In <i>Muchenje v Mutangadura &amp; Ors<a href="#_ftn6" name="_ftnref6" title="" id="_ftnref6"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[6]</span></span></span></b></span></span></a></i>, MUREMBA J articulated the position as follows:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">“The fact that the applicant is seeking a particular relief is not itself decisive. In other words what is important or what matters are the grounds on which the application is based rather than the order or relief that is being sought. Regard should be heard to the substance of the application and the averments contained therein instead of the relief that is being sought…”</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The views of the learned judge are quite apposite. It is not unusual for litigants to disguise matters under some appellation that would ordinarily take it out of the labour domain, when for all intents and purposes, such a matter must be dealt with in terms of the labour laws. A perusal of paragraph 23 of the founding affidavit shows that the applicant in essence seeks several <i>declaraturs </i>which fall for determination on the return date. Mr <i>Madhuku’s</i> submission that s 93 (7) of the Act accords the applicant sufficient remedies that he ought to have pursued instead of approaching this court is indeed persuasive. However what takes this case outside the ambit of s 93 of the Act is the nature of the application as amplified by the evidence placed before the court. I am of course minded that at this stage this court cannot interrogate the merits of the application as regards the substantive relief sought on the return date. That is a matter for the court to consider on the return date. Suffice it to note that the Labour Court does not have the powers to issue <i>declaraturs</i> or grant interim interdicts of the nature sought herein.<a href="#_ftn7" name="_ftnref7" title="" id="_ftnref7"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[7]</span></span></span></span></span></a> </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The court’s attention was also drawn to the judgment of my brother DEME J in <i>Baking and Allied Workers Union &amp; Four Others</i> v<i> National Employment Council for Food and Allied Industries and Seven Others<a href="#_ftn8" name="_ftnref8" title="" id="_ftnref8"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[8]</span></span></span></b></span></span></a></i> where this court amongst other reasons given, declined jurisdiction on the basis that the parties had agreed in their constitution that all disputes that may arise must be resolved in terms of the Labour Act as amended from time to time. That finding was made after the court had considered the matter on the merits. That issue was not argued before me and I must hazard to also point that this court is not concerned with the merits of the dispute at this stage. Suffice it to observe though that the jurisdiction of the court cannot be easily ousted by an agreement between the parties. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">For the foregoing reasons, I find that this court has jurisdiction to deal with this matter.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Whether the Second Respondent is properly before the court</span></span></span></i></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The second respondent’s opposing affidavit was deposed to by the General Secretary of UFAWUZ. That entity is a federation of trade unions to which the second respondent is affiliated. Mr <i>Magogo</i> submitted that there was no opposition on behalf of the second respondent as its affidavit was deposed to by an official representing an entity that was not a party to the proceedings. He further submitted that the decision to oppose the application could not be taken by any other party other than the second respondent. He referred to section 29(2) of the Act which states that:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            “</span></span><b><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:10.5pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">29 Registration of trade unions and employers organizations and privileges thereof</span></span></b></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:66px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-14.2pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:10.5pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">(1) Subject to this Act, any trade union, employers organization or federation may, if it so desires, apply for registration.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:66px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-13.65pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:10.5pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">(2) Every <u>trade union, employers organization or federation shall, upon registration, become a body corporate and shall in its corporate name be capable of suing and being sued</u>, of purchasing or otherwise acquiring, holding or alienating property, movable or immovable, and of doing any other act or thing which its constitution requires or permits it to do, or which a body corporate may, by law, do.” (Underlining mine for emphasis).</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:66px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-13.65pt"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Mr <i>Magogo</i> argued that the second respondent did not lose its autonomy or identity by virtue of its affiliation to UFAWUZ.  Counsel drew the court’s attention to clause 2.3 of the UFAWUZ constitution which states as follows:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:13px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">“Affiliates, including affiliates that are being oriented about the Federation, remain autonomous bodies governed by their own constitution but they must abide by this Constitution and policies of the Federation.”</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Mr <i>Magogo</i> further submitted that in light of the above provision, the deponent to the affidavit ought to have produced a resolution by the second respondent granting UFAWUZ authority to represent the second respondent. In the absence of such authority, the second respondent’s attitude to the application was unknown. To support his submissions on the point, counsel cited the cases of </span></span></span><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Madzivire &amp; Ors </span></span></span></i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">v<i> Zvarivadza &amp; Ors<a href="#_ftn9" name="_ftnref9" title="" id="_ftnref9"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><b><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[9]</span></span></span></b></span></span></a> </i></span></span></span><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">and <i>Dube </i>v<i> Premier Service Medical Aid Society &amp; Another<a href="#_ftn10" name="_ftnref10" title="" id="_ftnref10"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><b><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[10]</span></span></span></b></span></span></a>. </i>In the <i>Dube</i> case, the court followed the <i>ratio decidendi</i> in the <i>Madzivire &amp; Ors </i>v <i>Zvarivadza &amp; Ors</i> judgment where the court said:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:13px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-ZW">“A company, being a separate legal person from its directors, cannot be represented in a legal suit by a person who has not been authorised to do so. This is a well-established legal principle, which the courts cannot be ignored. It does not depend on the pleadings by either party. The fact that the person is the managing director of the company does not clothe him with the authority to sue on behalf of the company in the absence of any resolution authorising him to do so. The general rule is that directors of a company can only act validly when assembled at a board meeting. As exception to this rule is where a company has only one director who can perform all judicial acts without holding a full meeting.” </span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">As regards the third respondent, Mr <i>Magogo</i> submitted that the General Secretary who deposed to the opposing affidavit needed to attach a resolution of the third respondent’s Council to confirm his authority to represent the third respondent. That council was made up of representatives of the applicant, first and second respondents. Counsel submitted that the council was the ultimate authority in making a decision whether or not to oppose the application. On the strength of the <i>Madzivire </i>and the <i>Dube</i> cases, counsel submitted that it was incumbent upon the deponent to furnish the court with the authority to represent the third respondent. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            In his response on behalf of the second respondent, Mr <i>Madhuku</i> submitted that sections 27 and 29 of the Act had liberalized the rights of trade unions to legal representation. A trade union could surrender its rights of defence and representation in legal proceedings. That was the reason why the Act had gone out of its way to create an institution called a federation. Counsel referred to the case of <i>Baking and Allied Workers Union &amp; Four Others v National Employment Council for Food and Allied Industries and Seven Others<a href="#_ftn11" name="_ftnref11" title="" id="_ftnref11"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[11]</span></span></span></b></span></span></a>, </i>where the court determined that it was proper for a federation to represent its trade union members. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            Mr <i>Madhuku</i> further submitted that a notice of opposition need not be deposed by an official of the second respondent. He submitted that the applicant was raising a technical objection with no merit. He referred to r 58(4)(a) of the High Court Rules which provides that:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            “</span></span><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:10.5pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">(4) An affidavit filed with a written application—</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:10.5pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">(<i>a</i>) shall be made by the applicant or respondent, as the case may be, or by a person who can swear to the facts or averments set out in therein; and</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:10.5pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">(<i>b</i>) may be accompanied by documents verifying the facts or averments set out in the affidavit, and any reference in this Part to an affidavit shall be construed as including such documents.”</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">            <span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">In her response, Ms <i>Sande</i> for the third respondent submitted that no resolution was attached to the third respondent’s affidavit because the deponent derived his authority from the constitution. She referred to clause 7.3 of the third respondent’s constitution which provides as follows:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">“Whenever the exigencies of council business on a day to day basis demands, the General Secretary shall, make decisions necessary in the day to day administration of council affairs provided that such decisions shall be ratified in the meetings of the Executive Committee.”<a href="#_ftn12" name="_ftnref12" title="" id="_ftnref12"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[12]</span></span></span></span></span></a></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Counsel submitted that the urgency of litigation matters necessitated that the General Secretary be accorded such powers as the convening of Executive Committee meetings would delay the taking of decisions on such urgent matters. Ms <i>Sande</i> also referred to paragraph 21 of the third respondent’s constitution which authorizes the General Secretary or his appointed deputy to sign all documents on behalf of council. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            In reply Mr <i>Magogo </i>submitted that there was nothing in the law that allowed a federation to substitute itself for a party that was involved in litigation, unless the federation itself was cited. He further submitted that the interpretation of the law submitted on behalf of the second respondent would lead to an absurdity where for instance the party cited would be involved in litigation that it was unaware of. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">As regards the third respondent’s submission, Mr <i>Magogo</i> maintained the applicant’s position that an entity required a resolution permitting a deponent to represent it in litigation proceedings. He further submitted that the day to day business of an entity referred to in clause 7.3 of the respondent’s constitution did not apply to litigation proceedings. Counsel also submitted that the powers to sign all documents referred to in clause 21 did not extend to litigation documents. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            Section 29(2) of the Act provides that once a trade union, employers organization or federation is registered, it becomes </span></span></span><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">a body corporate and shall in its corporate name be capable of suing and being sued. An official who purports to represent such a body corporate must assert their source of authority to act in that manner. The current position of the law was reaffirmed by GARWE JA (as he then was) in <i>Dube</i> v<i> Premier Service Medical Aid Society &amp; Another<a href="#_ftn13" name="_ftnref13" title="" id="_ftnref13"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><b><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[13]</span></span></span></b></span></span></a>. </i>Having cited with approval the dictum in the <i>Madzvire &amp; Ors </i>v<i> Zvarivadza &amp; Ors, </i>the learned judge went on to state:</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-ZW">“A person who represents a legal entity, when challenged, must show that he is duly authorised to represent the entity. His mere claim that by virtue of the position he holds in such an entity he is duly authorised to represent the entity is not sufficient. He must produce a resolution of the board of that entity which confirms that the board is indeed aware of the proceedings and that it has given such a person the authority to act in the stead of the entity. I stress that the need to produce such proof is necessary only in those cases where the authority of the deponent is put in issue. This represents the current state of the law in this country.”</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            I associate myself with the exposition of the law as expounded by the learned judge. The starting point is that once registered, a trade union and a federation become bodies corporate capable of suing and being sued in their own right. If the federation is going to claim authority to represent a trade union, then that authority must be grounded in a resolution passed by the trade union, which in its own right is at law capable of suing and being sued. In my respectful view, it would be stretching the scope of s 35(a) (v) too wide, to accord it an interpretation that bestows on a federation the right to represent a trade union without the express authority of the trade union. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">As regards the allusion to r 58(4)(a) of the High Court rules, I do not believe that the provision substitutes the need for authority where that person is deposing to an affidavit in a representative capacity. Anyone would claim that they can swear positive to the facts as set out therein but without the requisite authority. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">For that reason, I am persuaded by Mr <i>Magogo’s</i> submission that the notice of opposition filed on behalf of the second respondent is irregular.  The notice of opposition purportedly filed on behalf of the second respondent by the General Secretary of UFAWUZ is hereby expunged from the record of proceedings. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            As regards the notice of opposition filed on behalf of the third respondent, I agree with Ms <i>Sande’s</i> submission that the starting point must be the constitution that established the third respondent. In my view clause 7.3 as read together with clause 21 of the third respondent’s constitution authorizes the General Secretary to represent the third respondent. The decisions made by the General Secretary in the exercise of his day to day functions of Council business as provided by clause 7.3 of the Constitution are subject to ratification by the Executive Committee. Clause 21 authorises the General Secretary to <i><u>“sign all documents on behalf of the Council</u>.</i>” In terms of clause 8.2 of the third respondent’s constitution, the Council of the third respondent <i>“shall meet at least twice annually at such times and places as the Chairperson or the General Secretary may from time to time determine</i>”.  I agree with the observations by my brother DEME J in the <i>Baking and Allied Workers Union &amp; Four Others v National Employment Council for Food and Allied Industries and Seven Others<a href="#_ftn14" name="_ftnref14" title="" id="_ftnref14"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[14]</span></span></span></b></span></span></a> </i>case that given the intervals at which the Council is obliged to meet, it comes as no surprise that the General Secretary is endowed with powers to make key decisions as well as sign all documents on behalf of the Council subject to ratification by the Executive Committee. I accordingly find the objection meritless and it is hereby dismissed. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">That a lawful process cannot be interdicted</span></span></span></i></b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">; </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">It was submitted on behalf of the first respondent that there was nothing unlawful about the submission of the CBA to the fourth respondent for registration in terms of section 79 of the Act. Mr <i>Madhuku </i>further submitted that the Act had an inbuilt process to regulate such matters. The court would have interfered with a lawful process if it granted the relief sought. In reply Mr <i>Magogo</i> submitted that the application challenged the authority of the first respondent to negotiate a CBA with the second respondent. He further submitted that a CBA that was not negotiated in terms of section 74(2) of the Act was not a lawful CBA. There was therefore nothing lawful about the whole process. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">It is settled law in this jurisdiction that this court cannot interdict a lawful process.<a href="#_ftn15" name="_ftnref15" title="" id="_ftnref15"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[15]</span></span></span></span></span></a> The applicant contends that the CBA was not lawfully concluded. The law which founds that process was violated. It is for that reason that the applicant seeks an interim relief suspending the registration of the CBA to allow the court to interrogate fully the lawfulness of the entire process. There is evidence on record in the form of correspondence between the parties that clearly points to a dispute. The applicant had anticipated that such dispute would be resolved through the intervention of the third and fourth respondents before the negotiations leading to the conclusion of the CBA could commence. It is also clear from the papers that such negotiations leading to the CBA were done behind the applicant’s back when all the parties were aware of the applicant’s interest in those negotiations. For that reason, it is the court’s view that there is merit in the applicant’s complaint which warrants the intervention of this court at this stage. I find no merit in the objection and it is accordingly dismissed.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Failure to exhaust domestic remedies </span></span></span></i></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            Mr <i>Madhuku</i> submitted that the applicant had not exhausted the domestic remedies provided under s 79(2) of the Act. Section 79(2) states that:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            “</span></span><b><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:10.5pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">79 Submission of collective bargaining agreements for approval or registration</span></span></b></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:10.5pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">(1) After negotiation, a collective bargaining agreement shall be submitted to the Registrar for registration.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:10.5pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">(2) Where any provision of a collective bargaining agreement appears to the Minister to be—</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:10.5pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">(<i>a</i>) inconsistent with this Act or any other enactment; or</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:10.5pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">(<i>b</i>) contrary to public interest;</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:10.5pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">(<i>c</i>) unreasonable or unfair, having regard to the respective rights of the parties;</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:10.5pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">he may direct the Registrar not to register such collective bargaining agreement until it has been suitably amended by the parties thereto.</span></span> </span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Ms <i>Sande</i> submitted that the applicant had prematurely approached this court as the process leading to the registration of the CBA had not been exhausted yet. The Registrar was still to call for representations from interested parties. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">In his response, Mr <i>Magogo </i>submitted that there was no provision in the Act which allowed a concerned party to make representations to the registering authority before the CBA can be registered. That left aggrieved party exposed. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">In <i>Makarudze and Another v Bungu and Two Others<a href="#_ftn16" name="_ftnref16" title="" id="_ftnref16"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[16]</span></span></span></b></span></span></a></i>, MAFUSIRE J made the following pertinent observations about domestic remedies:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:76px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-ZW">“The general view is that it is discouraged for a litigant to rush to this court before he or she has exhausted such domestic procedures or remedies as may be available to his or her situation in any given case. He or she is expected to obtain relief through the available domestic channels unless there are good reasons for not doing so: see <i>Nokuthula Moyo </i>v <i>Norman Gwindingwi NO &amp; Anor</i><a href="#_ftn17" name="_ftnref17" title="" id="_ftnref17"><sup><sup><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:11.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[17]</span></span></span></sup></sup></a>. </span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:76px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><u><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-ZW">However, it is also the general view that the domestic remedies must be able to provide effective redress to the complaint</span></u><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-ZW">. Furthermore, the alleged unlawfulness complained of must not be such as would have undermined the domestic remedies themselves: see <i>Tutani </i>v<i> Minister of Labour &amp; Ors</i><a href="#_ftn18" name="_ftnref18" title="" id="_ftnref18"><sup><sup><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:11.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[18]</span></span></span></sup></sup></a>; <i>Moyo </i>v<i> Forestry Commission</i><a href="#_ftn19" name="_ftnref19" title="" id="_ftnref19"><sup><sup><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:11.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[19]</span></span></span></sup></sup></a> and <i>Musandu </i>v<i> Chairperson of Cresta Lodge Disciplinary and Grievance Committee</i><a href="#_ftn20" name="_ftnref20" title="" id="_ftnref20"><sup><sup><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:11.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[20]</span></span></span></sup></sup></a>. <u>The court will not insist on an applicant first exhausting domestic remedies where they do not confer better and cheaper benefits: <i>Moyo’s </i>case, <i>supra</i>, at p 192</u>.”(Underlining for emphasis). </span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:76px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The observations are quite apposite. There is no point in insisting on the utilization of domestic remedies that do not accord a litigant the kind of reprieve that he would summarily obtain through an approach to courts of law. Section 79 (2) of the Act is only invoked by the Minister if he is of the considered view that the circumstances set out in paragraphs (a) – (c) exist. That provision does not give an aggrieved party the leeway to approach the Registrar. I find no merit in the objection and it is accordingly dismissed.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Lack of Urgency</span></span></span></i></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            Mr <i>Madhuku</i> submitted that the matter was not urgent. The applicant did not explain why it did not approach the court around 7 February 2022 when it became clear that there was a dispute between the parties. The applicant had also not demonstrated the prejudice it would suffer if the matter was not dealt with on an urgent basis. Counsel further submitted that the imminence of the registration of the CBA was not the basis of the application. Rather, it was premised on the need to have the dispute resolved expeditiously. Mr <i>Madhuku</i> further submitted that urgency was not just confined to the time factor. A matter was also urgent with regards to the consequences that would befall the applicant if the matter was not treated as urgent. The applicant had not alluded to any such adverse consequences. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            In reply, Mr <i>Magogo</i> submitted that the urgency of the matter stemmed from the memorandum of 24 March 2024 from the third respondent which advised that the CBA had been concluded, and had since been forwarded to the fourth respondent for gazetting. The applicant could not have acted earlier than that.   </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="background:white"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black">The question of urgency must be considered in the context of the circumstances surrounding the dispute. These circumstances are peculiar to each case, and for that reason, each case must be considered on its own merits. The remarks by </span></span></span></span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">MAKARAU JP <span style="color:black">(as she then was) in <i>Document Support Centre (Pvt) Ltd</i> v <i>Mapuvire<a href="#_ftn21" name="_ftnref21" title="" id="_ftnref21"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black">[21]</span></span></span></span></b></span></span></a></i>  are apposite in that regard. She said:</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:13px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="background:white"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.5pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black">“………In my view, urgent applications are those where if the courts fail to act, the applicants may well be within their rights to dismissively suggest to the court that it should not bother to act subsequently as the position would have become irreversible and irreversibly so to the prejudice of the applicant”. </span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black">I associate myself with the views of the learned judge. The court will not ignore the consequences attendant upon a failure to deal with a matter on an urgent basis. Of course, adverse consequences to the applicant’s cause will not save an applicant where it is clear that the applicant indeed sat on its laurels and was only jolted into action by the impending harm. That cannot be said of the applicant in this case. </span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black">Paragraph 1 of the certificate of urgency as read with paragraph 25 of the founding affidavit shows that what triggered an approach to this court on an urgent basis was the memorandum of 24 March 2022. Prior to that date, there was communication between the applicant and third respondent in connection with the dispute. The third respondent on its part also engaged the fourth respondent and copied such communication to the applicant. It certainly came as a shock for the applicant to receive communication advising of the conclusion of the CBA when all along it was waiting for the resolution of matters that would pave way for the commencement of the collective bargaining negotiations.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black">This court is satisfied that the matter is urgent and that the applicant did not sit on its laurels. It approached the court immediately upon realising the CBA had been placed before the fourth respondent for registration and gazetting. If this matter is not dealt with urgently, then the impugned CBA will be registered before the applicant’s concerns are addressed. The preliminary point has no merit and is accordingly dismissed. </span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black">MERITS </span></span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black">The purpose of an interdict was set out in<b> </b></span></span></span></span><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Mayor Logistics (Pvt) Ltd </span></span></span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">v<i> Zimbabwe Revenue     Authority<a href="#_ftn22" name="_ftnref22" title="" id="_ftnref22"><b><sup><b><sup><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[22]</span></span></span></sup></b></sup></b></a><b>, </b></i>where MALABA DCJ (as he then was) said:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">“An interdict is ordinarily granted to prevent continuing or future conduct which is harmful to a <i>prima facie</i> right, pending final determination of that right by a court of law.  Its object is to avoid a situation in which, by the time the right is finally determined in favour of the applicant, it has been injured to the extent that the harm cannot be repaired by the grant of the right.  </span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:13px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">It is axiomatic that the interdict is for the protection of an existing right.  There has to be proof of the existence of a <i>prima facie</i> right.  <u>It is also axiomatic that the <i>prima facie</i> right is protected from unlawful conduct which is about to infringe it.  </u>An interdict cannot be granted against past invasions of a right nor can there be an interdict against lawful conduct.  <i>Airfield investments (Pvt) Ltd </i>v <i>Minister of Lands&amp; Ors</i> 2004(1) ZLR 511(S); <i>Stauffer Chemicals </i>v<i> Monsato Company</i> 1988(1) SA 895;  <i>Rudolph &amp; Anor </i>v<i> Commissioner for Inland Revenue &amp; Ors</i> 1994(3) SA 771.”  (Underlining for emphasis). </span> </span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">It is common cause that the applicant is registered as an employer association in terms of the Act. Such registration entitles the applicant to be part of the collective bargaining negotiations involving its membership and trade unions in the Food and Allied Industry (Milling Sub-sector). The birth of the first respondent led to a dispute regarding its status on the eve of the collective bargaining negotiations. The dispute necessitated the verification of its membership before the stakeholders in the sector could meet to commence negotiations. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="Default" style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black">In <i>Airfield Investments (Pvt) Ltd </i>v<i> Minister of Lands, Agriculture and Rural Resettlement &amp; Ors.<a href="#_ftn23" name="_ftnref23" title="" id="_ftnref23"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><b><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black">[23]</span></span></span></span></b></span></span></a> </i>MALABA JA (as he then was) set out the requirements for the granting of a temporary interdict as follows<span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:11.5pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%">: </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="Default" style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:11.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW">“It must be borne in mind that an interim interdict is an extraordinary remedy, the granting of which is at the discretion of the court hearing the application for the relief. There are, however, requirements which an applicant for interim relief must satisfy before it can be granted. In <i>L F Boshoff Investments (Pty) Ltd </i>v<i> Cape Town Municipality </i>1969 (2) SA 256 (C) at 267 A-F, CORBETT J (as he then was) said an applicant for such temporary relief must show: </span></span></span></span></p> <p class="Default" style="margin-left:76px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-20.7pt"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:11.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW">“(a) that the right which is the subject matter of the main action and which he seeks to protect by means of interim relief is clear or, if not clear, is <i>prima facie </i>established though open to some doubt; </span></span></span></span></p> <p class="Default" style="margin-left:66px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-13.65pt"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:11.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW">(b) that, if the right is only <i>prima facie </i>established, there is a well-grounded apprehension of irreparable harm to the applicant if the interim relief is not granted and he ultimately succeeds in establishing his right; </span></span></span></span></p> <p class="Default" style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:11.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW">(c) that the balance of convenience favours the granting of interim relief; and </span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt; margin-bottom:13px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">(d) that the applicant has no other satisfactory remedy.”</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">From a consideration of the papers and the submissions by the parties, this court is satisfied that the applicant has managed to establish a <i>prima facie</i> case by virtue of its registration as an employer association. It is entitled to participate in the affairs of the third respondent as a representative of its membership. It is common cause that negotiations which resulted in the birth of the CBA that is now before the fourth respondent for registration and gazetting were done without the applicant’s input. The negotiations were held at a time when both third and fourth respondents were seized with the matter regarding the membership status of the first respondent. The meeting of 7 February 2022 which was organized to discuss the sharing of seats to include the first respondent was deferred to allow the verification of its membership. The postponement was also meant to verify the statuses of the applicant and GMAZ amongst other things. In the court’s view the applicant has managed to demonstrate that there is a well-grounded apprehension of irreparable harm if the CBA is registered before the pending issues are resolved.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The balance of convenience favours the granting of the interim relief. The applicant asserts that it represents the majority of the employers in the sector, a claim that was not convincingly refuted by the respondents. It is only proper that it be represented in any CBA negotiations whose outcome will bind its membership. The court is also satisfied that the applicant has no other satisfactory remedy. Once the CBA is registered and gazette, it becomes implementable. It has to be complied with by some employers that may not have been represented in its formulation. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">It is for the foregoing reasons that the court is satisfied that the applicant is entitled to the relief it seeks. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Accordingly it is ordered that:</span></span></span>  </b></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:10px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Pending determination of this matter on the return date, the applicant is granted the following interim relief<span lang="EN-ZW" style="color:black" xml:lang="EN-ZW">:-</span></span></span></span></p> <ol><li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">The registration of the Collective Bargaining Agreement: Food and Allied Industries (Milling Sub-sector) between first and second Respondent dated 22 March 2022 be and is hereby stayed;</span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">The first respondent be and is hereby temporarily interdicted from participating in any collective bargaining negotiations for the Milling sub-sector.</span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:13px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">This provisional order shall be served on the respondents by the Sheriff of the High Court of Zimbabwe or by the applicants’ legal practitioners</span></span></span> </span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Takawira Law Chambers</span></span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">, applicant’s legal practitioners</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Lovemore Madhuku Lawyers,</span></span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"> first and second respondents’ legal practitioners</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Sande Legal Practice, </span></span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">third Respondent’s<i> </i>legal practitioners </span></span></span></span></span></p> <div>  <hr align="left" size="1" width="33%" /><div id="ftn1"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText"><span style="font-size:10pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><a href="#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1" title="" id="_ftn1"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[1]</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></a><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"> [<i>Chapter 28:01</i>]</span></span></span></span></p> </div> <div id="ftn2"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:10pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><a href="#_ftnref2" name="_ftn2" title="" id="_ftn2"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[2]</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></a><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"> <i>Nhari v Mugabe &amp; Others</i> SC 161/20; <i>Chingombe v City of Harare</i> SC 177/20; <i>Baking and Allied Workers Union &amp; Four Others v National Employment Council for Food and Allied Industries and Seven Others</i> HH 148/22</span></span></span></span></p> </div> <div id="ftn3"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText"><span style="font-size:10pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><a href="#_ftnref3" name="_ftn3" title="" id="_ftn3"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[3]</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></a><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"> HH 180/16</span></span></span></span></p> </div> <div id="ftn4"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText"><span style="font-size:10pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><a href="#_ftnref4" name="_ftn4" title="" id="_ftn4"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[4]</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></a><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"> HH 38/18</span></span></span></span></p> </div> <div id="ftn5"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText"><span style="font-size:10pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><a href="#_ftnref5" name="_ftn5" title="" id="_ftn5"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,sans-serif">[5]</span></span></span></span></span></a> <i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:9.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Nhari v Mugabe &amp; Ors </span></span></i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:9.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">(supra)</span></span></span></span></p> </div> <div id="ftn6"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText"><span style="font-size:10pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><a href="#_ftnref6" name="_ftn6" title="" id="_ftn6"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[6]</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></a><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"> HH 21/21</span></span></span></span></p> </div> <div id="ftn7"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText"><span style="font-size:10pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><a href="#_ftnref7" name="_ftn7" title="" id="_ftn7"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[7]</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></i></span></a><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"> Stylianou and 2 Others v Mubita and 25 Others SC 7/17</span></span></i></span></span></p> </div> <div id="ftn8"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText"><span style="font-size:10pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><a href="#_ftnref8" name="_ftn8" title="" id="_ftn8"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[8]</span></span></span></span></span></span></a><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US"> supra </span></span></span></p> </div> <div id="ftn9"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText"><span style="font-size:10pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><a href="#_ftnref9" name="_ftn9" title="" id="_ftn9"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,sans-serif">[9]</span></span></span></span></span></span></a> <span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:9.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">2006(1) ZLR 514 (S); </span></span></span></span></p> </div> <div id="ftn10"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText"><span style="font-size:10pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><a href="#_ftnref10" name="_ftn10" title="" id="_ftn10"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[10]</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></a><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"> SC 73/19</span></span></span></span></p> </div> <div id="ftn11"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText"><span style="font-size:10pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><a href="#_ftnref11" name="_ftn11" title="" id="_ftn11"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[11]</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></a><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"> Supra </span></span></span></span></p> </div> <div id="ftn12"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText"><span style="font-size:10pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><a href="#_ftnref12" name="_ftn12" title="" id="_ftn12"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[12]</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></a><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"> Page 64 of the application</span></span></span></span></p> </div> <div id="ftn13"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText"><span style="font-size:10pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><a href="#_ftnref13" name="_ftn13" title="" id="_ftn13"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[13]</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></a><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"> supra </span></span></span></span></p> </div> <div id="ftn14"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText"><span style="font-size:10pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><a href="#_ftnref14" name="_ftn14" title="" id="_ftn14"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[14]</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></a><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"> Page 8 of the judgment. </span></span></span></span></p> </div> <div id="ftn15"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText"><span style="font-size:10pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><a href="#_ftnref15" name="_ftn15" title="" id="_ftn15"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[15]</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></a><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"> <i>Judicial Services Commission v Zibani &amp; Others </i>SC 68/17<i>; Mayor Logistics (Pvt)    Ltd v Zimbabwe      Revenue     Authority </i>CCZ 7/14 at page 8 of the judgment </span></span></span></span></p> </div> <div id="ftn16"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText"><span style="font-size:10pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><a href="#_ftnref16" name="_ftn16" title="" id="_ftn16"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[16]</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></a><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"> At pages 9-10 of the judgment</span></span></span></span></p> </div> <div id="ftn17"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:10pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><a href="#_ftnref17" name="_ftn17" title="" id="_ftn17"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[17]</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></a><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"> HB168/11; See also <i>Musandu v Cresta Lodge Disciplinary and Grievance Committee</i> HH 115/94; <i>Moyo v Forestry Commission</i> 1996 (1) ZLR 173 (H); <i>Tuso v City of Harare</i> 2004 (1) ZLR 1 (H); <i>Chawara v Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe</i> 2006 (1) ZLR 525 (H) and <i>Tutani v Minister of Labour and Others</i> 1987 (2) ZLR 88 (H)</span></span></span></span></p> </div> <div id="ftn18"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:10pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><a href="#_ftnref18" name="_ftn18" title="" id="_ftn18"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[18]</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></a><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"> 1987 (2) ZLR 88 (H) at p 95D</span></span></span></span></p> </div> <div id="ftn19"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:10pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><a href="#_ftnref19" name="_ftn19" title="" id="_ftn19"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[19]</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></a><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"> 1996 (1) ZLR 173 (HC), at p 191</span></span></span></span></p> </div> <div id="ftn20"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:10pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><a href="#_ftnref20" name="_ftn20" title="" id="_ftn20"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[20]</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></a><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"> HH 115/94</span></span></span></span></p> </div> <div id="ftn21"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText"><span style="font-size:10pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><a href="#_ftnref21" name="_ftn21" title="" id="_ftn21"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[21]</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></a> <span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">2006 (1) ZLR 232 (H) 243G<span style="color:#4a4a4a">; 244A-C</span></span></span></span></span></p> </div> <div id="ftn22"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText"><span style="font-size:10pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><a href="#_ftnref22" name="_ftn22" title="" id="_ftn22"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[22]</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></a><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"> CCZ 7/14 at page 8 of the judgment </span></span></span></span></p> </div> <div id="ftn23"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText"><span style="font-size:10pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><a href="#_ftnref23" name="_ftn23" title="" id="_ftn23"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,sans-serif">[23]</span></span></span></span></span></a> <i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">2004 (1) ZLR 511 (S) </span></span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">at 517 C-E</span></span></span></span></p> </div> </div></span></div></div> </div> </div> Tue, 03 May 2022 07:40:52 +0000 Sandra Muengwa 12409 at http://zimlii.org Offer Sivani and Another v Shibtai and 2 Others (236 of 2022) [2022] ZWHHC 236 (07 April 2022); http://zimlii.org/zw/judgment/harare-high-court/2022/236 <span class="field field--name-title field--type-string field--label-hidden">Offer Sivani and Another v Shibtai and 2 Others (236 of 2022) [2022] ZWHHC 236 (07 April 2022);</span> <div class="field field--name-field-flynote field--type-entity-reference field--label-above"> <div class="field__label">Flynote</div> <div class='field__items'> <div class="field__item"><a href="/taxonomy/term/1485" hreflang="en">Loan</a></div> <div class="field__item"><a href="/taxonomy/term/1489" hreflang="en">Loan Repayment</a></div> <div class="field__item"><a href="/taxonomy/term/1566" hreflang="en">Jurisdiction</a></div> <div class="field__item"><a href="/taxonomy/term/1645" hreflang="en">Interim Interdict</a></div> <div class="field__item"><a href="/taxonomy/term/2137" hreflang="x-default">COMPANY</a></div> <div class="field__item"><a href="/taxonomy/term/1771" hreflang="en">Fraud</a></div> <div class="field__item"><a href="/taxonomy/term/2318" hreflang="x-default">Shareholder</a></div> <div class="field__item"><a href="/taxonomy/term/2269" hreflang="x-default">Urgent Application</a></div> </div> </div> <span class="field field--name-uid field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden"><span>Sandra Muengwa</span></span> <span class="field field--name-created field--type-created field--label-hidden">Tue, 04/26/2022 - 10:52</span> <div class="field field--name-field-files field--type-file field--label-above"> <div class="field__label">Download</div> <div class='field__items'> <div class="field__item"> <span class="file file--mime-application-vnd-openxmlformats-officedocument-wordprocessingml-document file--x-office-document"> <a href="https://media.zimlii.org/files/judgments/zwhhc/2022/236/2022-zwhhc-236.docx" type="application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document; length=34182">2022-zwhhc-236.docx</a></span> </div> <div class="field__item"> <span class="file file--mime-application-pdf file--application-pdf"> <a href="https://media.zimlii.org/files/judgments/zwhhc/2022/236/2022-zwhhc-236.pdf" type="application/pdf; length=367879">2022-zwhhc-236.pdf</a></span> </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-body field--type-text-with-summary field--label-hidden field__item"><p class="text-align-right">HH 236-22</p> <p class="text-align-right">HC 4711/21</p> <p class="text-align-right">REF CASE NO. SC 403/21</p> <p> </p> <p class="text-align-justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">OFFER SIVANI</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">and</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">ADLECRAFT INVESTMENTS (PVT) LTD</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">versus</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">GILAD SHIBTAI</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">and</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">MUNYARADZI GONYORA</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">and</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">GLADIOUS NHEMWA</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">CHITAPI J</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">HARARE, 7 April 2022</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p> </p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Opposed Urgent Application</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p> </p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">T Nyamakura</span></span></span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">, for the 1<sup>st</sup> applicant</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">R Dembure</span></span></span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">, for the 2<sup>nd</sup> respondent</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">T Mapuranga</span></span></span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"> with <i>GR Sithole</i>, for the 1<sup>st</sup> and 2<sup>nd</sup> respondent</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">K Shamhu</span></span></span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">, for the 3<sup>rd</sup> respondent</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            CHITAPI J:   It is necessary to set out the background to this matter because without such background, this judgment will not be easy to follow and/or appreciate.  The background aforesaid is set out in my judgment HH 550-21.  I therefore incorporate by reference, judgment HH 550-21 aforesaid.  I must record that judgment Number HH 550-21 was appealed against under case number SC 403/21.  The appeal does not, however, impugn the factual findings made in relation to the background facts which gave rise to the dispute amongst the parties.  <i>Ex abundata cautela</i> that a position maybe taken that judgment HH 550-21 cannot properly be adopted as setting out the factual background on account of it being on appeal, I will briefly set out the background facts.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            The dispute in the matter revolves around the ownership of the second applicant.  The first applicant claims to hold the entire shareholding in the second applicant in that he avers that he owns all the twenty (20) issued shares in the second applicant.  He claimed to have purchased the second applicant as a shelf company on 25 March 2011 where-after he invested in the company which became a going concern.  The second respondent carries on business specializing in technical and mining equipment.  The business is domiciled in Harare, Zimbabwe.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            In relation to the applicants’ relationship with the first respondent, the first applicant averred that the first respondent loaned some money to the second applicant as evidenced by a written loan agreement dated 25 March, 2015 entered into by the first respondent as the lender and the second applicant as borrower represented by the first applicant.  The loan was for an amount of $9 million in the form of “equipment machinery and spare parts”.  The purpose of the loan was to be utilized for various purposes set out on the agreement.  In essence the loan was to be utilized for the operations of the first applicant.  The loan was to be repaid by 31 December, 2018.  The first applicant averred that the first respondent was then appointed as a non-executive director in the second applicant to safeguard his interests as a lender.  The first applicant attached a copy of a CR 14 Form dated 19 May, 2015 which shows that the first respondent was appointed a director in the second applicant on 13 January, 2015.  The second and third respondents were as shown on the same CR 14 appointed directors of the second respondent on 19 May, 2015.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            The first applicant averred that in the course of the conduct of the business of the second applicant’s, operations bank accounts were opened by him on behalf of the second applicant with him, the first applicant as the sole signatory.  Accounts were opened with STANBIC and FBC Banks.  The first applicant attached copies of the resolutions of the directors of the second applicant who included the second and third respondents authorizing the first applicant to represent the second respondent in the opening of the accounts aforesaid and further to be the sole signatory on the accounts.  The first applicant averred that he has always been the Chief Executive of the second respondent.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            The first applicant averred that the first respondent without a board resolution nor engaging in consultations with him purported to take over negotiations for payments of outstanding payments due to the second applicant by one of its major customers and debtor namely the Zimbabwe Consolidated Diamond Company (ZCDC).  ZCDC had an equipment hire contract with the second applicant.  The contract had run from 2016 to 2020.  The second applicant in terms of the equipment hire arrangements hired out its machinery to ZCDC for which payment was due.  The first applicant averred that the first respondent by letter dated 18 March, 2021 and addressed to Mr Mabudu the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of ZCDC advised ZCDC to hold over talks on settlement of amounts due and owing to the second applicant until the first respondent had arrived in Harare around April 2021.  The first respondent followed up on the letter with another letter dated 21 Apri8l 2021 addressed to the Chief Financial Officer of ZCDC, a Mr Gobvu.  The first respondent in the said letter listed two bank accounts to which he directed that future and current payments towards the second applicant’s dues should be directed or deposited.  The two accounts were listed as Get Buck Bank Account No. 001203000000423 being a $ZWL denominated account and account No. 001206000000086 being an FCA denominated account.  The creation of these accounts and deposits made therein largely ground the dispute amongst the parties.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            It was common cause that deposits and debit transactions were made on the account aforesaid as from 1 January, 2021.  The first applicant averred that not only were the bank accounts opened without his knowledge or a valid resolution, but that the respondents abused deposits made therein by misappropriating the money.  The first applicant deposed that he made a report to the police against the respondents who, however, were not arrested on account of police failing to locate them.  The first applicant further attached bank statements showing further debits made in the period to 15 July, 2021.  It is not possible to conclude that all the debits made represented genuine company expenditure.  What discerns the eye however, is that several payments were made to supermarkets and the restaurants apart from payments to several other shops.  Those easily catching the eye were payments to TM Borrowdale, Café Nush, Great Wall Restaurant, Bon Marche Brooke, Lion and Cheetah Park and others.  As I have indicated, apart from raising the eye, there would need to be conduct an audit of the books of accounts of the second applicant to get a clearer picture of the presence or otherwise of misappropriation of funds.  The first applicant averred that the transactions on the two accounts were not supported by any account books or invoices hence suggesting that the expenses were not for the company business.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            The first applicant averred that the respondents continued to misappropriate funds and to misuse the name of the second applicant for their own ends.  The relationship of the parties became frosty and toxic to the point that they took each other to court in case number HC 4405/21 wherein the claim was for harassment of the second applicant’s employees who were purportedly dismissed by the respondents who had taken steps to subject the employees to a disciplinary hearing.  Case number HC 4405/21 was determined by <span style="font-variant:small-caps">Tsanga J</span> who noted that the second applicant was indeed embroiled in a shareholder and director dispute which required resolution.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            The first applicant avered that he then caused the issue of summons against the respondents in case number HC 4541/21 for a declaration to the effect that the first and second respondents committed a fraud against the second applicant in the period March 2021 and August 2021 and further that they be declared to have misappropriated the second applicant’s funds totaling USD$1 300 000.00 in the period January 20212 to August 2021.  The amount was made up of credits of $ USD300 486.67 deposited on 27 April, 2021; $USD500 000.00 deposited on 20 May, 2021 and $USD500 000.00 deposited on 20 May, 2021.  The other relief claimed on the summons is that the second and third respondents should re-imburse the USD$1 300 000.00 with 5% <i>mora</i> interest.  Further the applicants prayed for an order for removal of the second and third respondents as directors of the second applicant and a further order that the first applicant appoints new directors to replace the second and third respondents and costs of suit.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            The applicants followed up the summons case by filing this urgent application for a provisional order wherein the applicants prayed for an interdict in the interim.  The details of the provisional order are as follows:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            <b>TERMS OF THE FINAL ORDER SOUGHT</b></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">That you show cause to this Honourable Court why a final order should not be made in the following terms –</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <ol><li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The 1<sup>st</sup> and 2<sup>nd</sup> Respondents be and are hereby interdicted from operating account numbers ZWL 001203000000423 and FCA001206000000086 held under Getbucks Bank in the name of second applicant in any way so as to prejudice the second Applicant’s rights and without the first Applicant’s knowledge pending the determination of HC 4541/2021.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:72px; text-align:justify"> </p> <ol start="2"><li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The Respondents’ conduct be and is hereby declared to have caused a deadlock in the second Applicant company, thereby creating irreparable prejudice and harm to the said second Applicant.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:48px"> </p> <ol start="3"><li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The Respondents’ operation of an account in the name of the second Applicant with Getbucks under ZWL 001203000000423 and FCA001206000000086 be and is hereby declared to be an abdication of their duty of care as espoused under the Companies and Other Business Entities Act [<i>Chapter 24:31</i>].</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:48px"> </p> <ol start="4"><li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Any transactions entered into between the Respondents and other entities pursuant to paragraph one and two herein are declared invalid and thus set aside.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:48px"> </p> <ol start="5"><li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The resignation of 3<sup>rd</sup> Respondent as director and company secretary of second Applicant be declared binding on him and of force and effect and consequently, any and all resolutions signed by 3<sup>rd</sup> Respondent be declared null and void and he be barred from representing the second Applicant in any capacity.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:48px"> </p> <ol start="6"><li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Respondents shall pay costs of this suit on a legal practitioner and client scale.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:48px"> </p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">TERMS OF THE INTERIM RELIEF GRANTED</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Pending the determination of this matter on the return date, the applicants are granted the following relief:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <ol><li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The 1<sup>st</sup> and 2<sup>nd</sup> Respondents be and are hereby interdicted from operating account number ZWL 001203000000423 and FCA001206000000086 held under Getbucks Bank in the name of second Applicant in any way so as to prejudice the second Applicant’s rights and without the first Applicant’s knowledge pending the determination of HC 4541/2021.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:72px; text-align:justify"> </p> <ol start="2"><li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The 1<sup>st</sup> and 2<sup>nd</sup> Respondents be and are hereby interdicted from accessing and misappropriating funds from any of the second Applicant’s bank accounts pending the determination of HC 4541/2021.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:48px"> </p> <ol start="3"><li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The Respondents be and are hereby interdicted from posing out the public or soliciting business as a parallel second Applicant pending the determination of HC 4541/2021.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:48px"> </p> <ol start="4"><li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The 3<sup>rd</sup> Respondent be interdicted from acting or presenting himself as a director and/or company secretary of second Applicant pending determination of HC 4541/2021.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:48px"> </p> <ol start="5"><li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The Respondents be interdicted from conducting a disciplinary hearing on the 15<sup>th</sup> of September 2021 against second Applicant’s employees pending a determination of HC  4541/2021.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The respondents vehemently opposed the application and filed apposing affidavits. Although there was a challenge to urgency, I nonetheless determined that the matter be heard as an urgent application. It is in the discretion of the court reached upon a proper consideration of the circumstances of each case to pass a matter as urgent and agree to enrol and hear it on an urgent basis. Apart from other considerations, I have always considered with the greatest respect to positions taken in other decided cases that the remarks of <span style="font-variant:small-caps">Makarau J</span> (as she then was) in the case <i>Document Support Centre</i> v <i>Mapuvire</i> HH 117/06 lucidly sets out the most critical consideration in determining whether the matter be heard as an urgent case. The learned judge stated on p 4 of the cyclostyled judgment.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-ZW">“….. In my view urgent applications are those where if the courts fail to act, the applicants may well be within their rights to dismissively suggest to the court that it should not bother to act subsequently as the position would have become irreversible and irreversibly so to the prejudice of the applicant.</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-ZW">It is in my view that the issue of urgency is not tested subjectively. Most, litigants would like to see their disputes resolved as soon as they approach the courts. The test to be employed appears to me to be an objective one where the court has to be satisfied that the relief sought is such that it cannot want without irreparably prejudicing the legal interest concerned.”</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">In casu</span></span></span></i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">, it was my view that the second respondent as a legal <i>persona</i> needed to be protected by the court from having its assets in the form of the USD $1 300 000.00 dissipated without a proper account as this could lead to the demise of the second applicant. The parties’ positions clearly indicated a poisoned corporate discord amongst the shareholders and directors of the company wherein there were existing accounts held with Stanbic and FBC banks from which the second applicant’s operations were conducted with the first respondent coming in and causing the opening of the Get Bucks accounts and directing a divergence of funds due by ZCDC to the second applicant to the new account which was now operated by the respondents to the exclusion of the first applicant who however solely signed the existing account. Where a dispute albeit of a commercial nature involves an internal fight for the control of a company and the facts established show that the protagonists being shareholders and or directors of the company even though their positions be disputed have set up parallel centres of power and have diverted company assets and individually control them, a court is justified to urgently intervene to serve the corporate <i>persona</i> from being destroyed from within because of the bickering in ownership. Such urgent intervention ensures that the corporate <i>persona</i> remains afloat. In that way, upon the dispute being resolved, the protagonists will still have something to fight for. Besides, the demise of the company has ripple effects to workers, creditors and other interested parties. A juristic <i>persona</i> may therefore in appropriate circumstances be in need of protective relief for its survival pending resolution of disputes which impact negatively on its very existence.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Thus, despite the protestation on the lack of urgency of the matter raised by the respondents, I was inclined to allow the application to proceed to be heard on merits on the urgent roll. The serious dispute of ownership and control of the second applicant and the creation of parallel management centres of power and financial operations called from an urgent enquiry into the matter. In fact the first respondent stated as follows in para 35 of his opposing affidavit:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">            <span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-ZW">“35. AD PALAGRAPH 5</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-ZW">This is admitted save to state that the first applicant is currently not the Managing Director. The second applicant resolved to change the bank accounts after realizing that the first applicant was misappropriating funds and embezzling second applicant funds abusing the fact he was the sole signatory to the Stanbic and FBC Accounts.”</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The above position clearly showed turmoil in the second applicant because the Stanbic and FBC accounts were not closed. The first applicant remained the sole signatory on the said accounts. The respondents were in control of a newly opened account with Get Bucks Bank. A  company cannot operate like that. Urgency was beckoning, calling upon the court to accept to deal with the matter urgently. I obliged in the exercise of my discretion.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The next points <i>in limine</i> were an objection that the court did not have jurisdiction to deal with the application. The first and second respondents raised the issue. The third respondent objected that the first applicant did not have <i>locus standi</i> to seek the relief he was seeking on account of his being neither a minority nor majority shareholder of the second applicant. In this regard and to place the nature of the application into perspective the applicants claimed to bring a derivative action under s 62 of the Companies and Other Business Entities Act [<i>Chapter</i> <i>24:31</i>]. In summary the provisions of that section allows a member or shareholder of a company or business corporation to bring an action in such person’s name and on behalf of the company against any manager, director of officer to enforce or recover from the officer, manager or director damages caused by violations of duties owed to the company under that Act or any other law including laws against fraud and misappropriation. Remedies claimable are provided for in s 62. I shall revert to this when I discuss the nature of the relief sought herein.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">In relation to jurisdiction. The argument put forward by the first respondents was that because the previous of s 61 of the Companies and Other Business Entities Act [<i>Chapter 24:31</i>] permitted a member to bring a derivative “action”, the use of the word action precluded the bringing of proceedings contemplated therein by way of application. I disagreed with that interpretation in judgment HH 550/21.  The first and second respondents under case Number HC 382/21 appealed against the judgment upon my finding that the court had jurisdiction to deal with the dispute, through motion proceedings as opposed to a summons or action procedure.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Consequent on the filing of the appeal SC 382/21 argument was presented on the effects of the notice of appeal on the continuity of the hearing of the application. As it was my view that the appeal was noted against an interlocking order without leave, and that the court‘s jurisdiction could not be ousted by the noted appeal. The first and second respondents then filed an application to the Supreme Court under case No SC 402/21 for an order of stay of the continued hearing of this application pending appeal No SC 382/21. In the light of the pendency of case No SC 402/21, the hearing of this application was then postponed pending the decision on the application for stay aforesaid by the Supreme Court.  I dealt with the application on 24 November, 2021 when the parties advised that the first and second applicants had withdrawn case Number SC 402/21. The hearing of this application could therefore continue following my determination that the appeal challenge on jurisdiction to the Supreme Court did not suspend the hearing of this application.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">And then there had been a development which changed the character of the application. On 1 October, 2021 the first and second respondents purported to place the second applicant under voluntary corporate rescue in terms of s 122 of the Insolvency Act, [<i>Chapter 6:07</i>]<i>.</i> They appointed one Alexious Dera of INA Chartered Accountants as the Corporate Rescue Practitioner as provided for in s 122(3)(a) of the Insolvency Act. On 6 October, 2021 the Master of the High Court formalized the appointment of the corporate reserve practitioner and issued a certificate of appointment of the said Alexious M. Dera as such. The appointment was challenged in an urgent application filed by the first applicant challenging the process of and the said appointment. The challenge was filed under case No 5436/21. It became necessary to await the outcome of the application because the outcome would define the <i>locus standi</i> of the second applicant as well as the nature of its participation in the application since the effect of corporate reserve is inter alia to stay proceedings against the company.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Case Number HC 5436/21 was determined by <span style="font-variant:small-caps">Musithu</span> J in judgments HH 650/21 and HH 668/21. The learned judge suspended the operation of the resolution executed by the first and second therein as they are herein placing the second applicant herein under corporate reserve. The first and second applicants appealed against the judgment. The appeal reference is case Number 463/21.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">To complete the picture I can now upon reference to records on the matter record that the first applicant filed an application for leave to execute <span style="font-variant:small-caps">Musithu</span> J’s order pending appeal under case Number 6970/21. The application was granted by WAMAMBO J on 12 January 2022. This development however took place after the present application had been argued before me on 30 November, 2021. As at 30 November 2021, the corporate rescue practitioner was still a part of the proceedings by virtue of the appeal filed against the judgment of <span style="font-variant:small-caps">Musithu</span> J.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">On 30 November, 2021, the application proceeded to be heard since the application for stay of hearing pending the hearing of the appeal against my order that my judgment was not suspended by notice of appeal had been withdrawn and /or parties had before the Supreme Court agreed that this application is determined to finality. The corporate rescue practitioner was joined as a respondent in his capacity as such in relation to the second applicant. It was submitted that the corporate rescue practitioner wanted the second applicant under corporate rescue to be a respondent and to cease to be an applicant. The position suggested was legally untenable because the second applicant already had affidavits and documents filed as an applicant. The affidavits and documents aforesaid could not transform to opposing papers. After submissions made by counsel, the second applicant represented by the corporate rescue practitioner withdrew from the application.  Counsel agreed that the application proceeds without the second applicant.  The matter was then argued on the merits. I shall continue to refer to this second applicant company such for convenience.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            Counsel for the first applicant submitted that the first applicant was a shareholder of the second applicant and enjoyed derivative powers under the common law and statute to seek the relief he sought in the application.  There is on the other hand an acceptance that the first applicant is a director of the second applicant.  He was not consulted when the accounts in issue on this application were opened and subsequently operated without his involvement.  There was no valid resolution of the second applicant passed prior to opening the account.  The first responded admitted in his opposing affidavit that he is the one who opened the accounts because the first applicant as sole signatory was misappropriating the second applicant’s funds in the Stanbic and FBC accounts as sole signatory.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            Counsel argued that a run-down of the debts and withdrawals done on the accounts showed that they were not for operational costs since most of them were for personal expenditure in supermarkets and restaurants.  Counsel argued that it was necessary for the court to regulate the subject matter of the <i>lis</i> HC 4541/21 in order that the matter did not become academic.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            Counsel for the first and second respondents submitted that a special plea had been filed in case number HC 4541/21 to which the first applicant had not responded and was barred for failure to file heads of argument.  I have noted that the special plea was withdrawn on 11 November, 2021.  That puts paid to the argument based on an alleged bar against the first and second applicants. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            The first and second respondents submitted that the first applicant was not a shareholder or member of the second applicant.  It was submitted that since the derivative action envisaged by s 62 of the Companies and other Business Entities Act should be brought by shareholders or members, the first applicant lacked <i>locus standi</i>.  This argument could only be properly determined on the return date.  There is acceptance by all parties that there is a dispute on the shareholding of the second applicant.  The prayer sought herein is for an interim interdict pending the determination of the action filed in case number HC 4541/21.  The requirements for an interim interdict are settled.  </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            They are:-</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <ol style="list-style-type:lower-alpha"><li style="margin-left:56px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">a <i>prima facie</i> right which may be open to some doubt.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:56px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">a well-grounded apprehension for irreparable harm of the interim relief be not granted.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:56px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">the balance of convenience favours the grant of the interdict.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:56px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">no other satisfactory remedy.  See <i>Mushoriwa </i>v<i> City of Harare</i> HH 195/14; <i>Broadcasting Authority of Zimbabwe &amp; Anor </i>v<i> Dr Dish (Pvt) Ltd</i> SC 62/18; and <i>ARTUZ &amp; Anor </i>v<i> Zanu (PF) &amp; Anor</i> HMA 36/18.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            The first applicant has demonstrated more than a <i>prima facie</i> right to the relief sought.  He attached a copy of his share certificate which <i>prima facie</i> evidences his shareholding in the second applicant.  The first and second respondents disputed the first applicant’s shareholding.  This is a factual matter to be determined on the return date or in case number HC 4541/21.  The first applicants’ fear of irreparable harm was well grounded.  The second respondent admitted that the accounts in issue were opened by him without the first applicant’s involvement even as director.  The purpose of the accounts appeared to have been to receive payments from ZCDC and to disburse them without the involvement of the first applicant even as director.  The balance of convenience favours the grant of the interdict.   In this regard I quote the remarks of <span style="font-variant:small-caps">Musithu J</span> in the case of <i>Ofer Sivan </i>v<i> Gilad Shabtai &amp; 3 Ors</i> HH 668/21 wherein the learned judge stated on p 8 of the cyclostyled judgement:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">            <span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-ZW">“The purpose of a provisional order or an interlocutory injuction as it is called in some         jurisdiction was explained in the English case of <i>Attorney General </i>v<i> Punch Limited &amp; Anor        2002 UKHL </i>50 as follows:-</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-ZW">                        ‘The purpose for which the court grants an interlocutory injuction can be stated quite                        simply.  In <i>American Cyanamid Co </i>v<i> Ethicon Ltd</i> 1975 AC 396, 405 Lord DIPLOCK                       described it as a remedy which is both temporary and discretionary.  Its purpose is to                        regulate, and where possible to preserve the rights of the parties pending the final                 determination of the matter which is in issue”.</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-ZW">            There are genuine concerns on the part of the first applicant </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">that if the disputed accounts are not protected from withdrawal by the first and second respondents, there will be nothing left of that money to the prejudice of the first applicant’s rights.  As far as the balance of convenience is concerned there will be no irreparable harm to be suffered by the first and second respondents since the accounts will remain frozen.  At the same time the second applicant having withdrawn from the application and not filed any papers to set out its position it will have to abide the decision of the court.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Counsel submitted that there were material disputes of fact not capable of resolution on the papers.  This again is an argument to be resolved on the return date. For purposes of the interim order the court is obliged to grant the provisional order if on the papers, the court is satisfied that the applicant has established a <i>prim facie</i> case either on the terms proposed by the applicant in the draft order or as varied.  I have already indicated that the second applicant is being run on parallel management structures whereby the first applicant is signatory to a set of accounts.  His authority to do so is not disputed.  The first and second respondents control the accounts in issue here which were opened in disputed circumstances.  Those accounts cannot remain at the whim and control of the first and second respondents.  The second applicant must be protected from having its assets being dissipated in unclear circumstances.  The first and second respondent in their affidavit averred that the first applicant did not have or produce books of account to evidence his claim that the accounts were being abused.  This is a strange submission because on the contrary the first and second respondents are the ones who must show that they put the money to beneficial company uses.  They did not even offer to submit to an audit to clear that the withdrawals were genuinely done for the benefit of the second applicant.  </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The only other argument advanced was that the relief sought was similar both in the interim and final reliefs sought.  I agree that para (s) 1 on the interim and final reliefs are similar.  I do not consider the similarities in the relief sought to be fatal to the application because the court is permitted to grant a varied order which adequately protects the subject matter of the main dispute.  The critical issue in an application for an urgent provisional order is to ensure that the second respondent’s funds are protected.  The remedy should not be a contentious one because there is no loser or winner if an order to preserve the money is granted.  It is a win win order for the warring parties.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The first applicant has also prayed for orders that the respondents must be interdicted from posing as directors of the second applicant and soliciting for business as a parallel second applicant.  The circumstances of the case justify the grant of such an order in part because the second applicant evidently gave contrary and unilateral instructions to a creditor to deposit money belonging to the second applicant into accounts specially opened for the purpose and the accounts were run without the knowledge of the first applicant.  I cannot however grant an order that the first and second respondents should not pose as directors of the second applicant because they in fact remain directors until validly removed.  As far as the third respondent posing as director is concerned, the third respondent indicated that he was no longer a director or company secretary of the second applicant and in any event, he stated that he was standing by his papers filed of record.  As far as the prayer to stop the conducting of disciplinary hearings of the second applicants’ employees is concerned, such an order amounts to a pre mature interference in the domestic affairs of a corporate.  The employees concerned are not party to this application.  They can assert their rights separately.  </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">This order does not negate the corporate rescue status of the company which is under challenge.  The corporate rescue practitioner is free to seek a variation or discharge of the order in the event that he needs to access and use the funds in those accounts which will be frozen by this order.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">In the result, the provisional order will issue as varied in the interim relief which shall now read as follows:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Pending the determination of this matter on the return date the following relief is granted:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <ol><li style="text-align:justify; margin-left:8px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The first and second respondents are interdicted from operating the following accounts pending the determination of Case No. HC 4541/21 or an order as made to the contrary: Getbucks in the name of Adlecraft Investments (Pvt) Ltd </span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><ol style="list-style-type:lower-alpha"><li style="margin-left:56px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">$ZWL 001203000000423 </span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:56px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">FCA001206000000086</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><ol start="2"><li style="text-align:justify; margin-left:8px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The first and second respondents shall not solicit for business on behalf of Adlecraft Investments (Pvt) Ltd applicant outside of the knowledge and consent of the first applicant who is their co-director.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">G Sithole Law Chambers</span></span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">, 1<sup>st</sup> applicant’s legal practitioners</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Mabulala &amp; Dembure</span></span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">, 2<sup>nd</sup> applicant’s legal practitioners</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Rubaya &amp; Chatambudza</span></span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">, 1<sup>st</sup> and 2<sup>nd</sup> respondents’ respondent’s legal practitioners</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">C Nhemwa &amp; Associates</span></span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">, 3<sup>rd</sup> respondent’s legal practitioners</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> </div> <div class="views-element-container"><div class="view view-eva view-download-conditional view-id-download_conditional view-display-id-entity_view_1 js-view-dom-id-3e09b3f748d527aa27739178eb6f3d0a8c22089ad0ce648b76fc240537605662"> <div><div class="views-field views-field-views-conditional-field"><span class="field-content"><p class="text-align-right">HH 236-22</p> <p class="text-align-right">HC 4711/21</p> <p class="text-align-right">REF CASE NO. SC 403/21</p> <p> </p> <p class="text-align-justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">OFFER SIVANI</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">and</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">ADLECRAFT INVESTMENTS (PVT) LTD</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">versus</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">GILAD SHIBTAI</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">and</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">MUNYARADZI GONYORA</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">and</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">GLADIOUS NHEMWA</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">CHITAPI J</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">HARARE, 7 April 2022</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p> </p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Opposed Urgent Application</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p> </p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">T Nyamakura</span></span></span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">, for the 1<sup>st</sup> applicant</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">R Dembure</span></span></span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">, for the 2<sup>nd</sup> respondent</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">T Mapuranga</span></span></span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"> with <i>GR Sithole</i>, for the 1<sup>st</sup> and 2<sup>nd</sup> respondent</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">K Shamhu</span></span></span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">, for the 3<sup>rd</sup> respondent</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            CHITAPI J:   It is necessary to set out the background to this matter because without such background, this judgment will not be easy to follow and/or appreciate.  The background aforesaid is set out in my judgment HH 550-21.  I therefore incorporate by reference, judgment HH 550-21 aforesaid.  I must record that judgment Number HH 550-21 was appealed against under case number SC 403/21.  The appeal does not, however, impugn the factual findings made in relation to the background facts which gave rise to the dispute amongst the parties.  <i>Ex abundata cautela</i> that a position maybe taken that judgment HH 550-21 cannot properly be adopted as setting out the factual background on account of it being on appeal, I will briefly set out the background facts.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            The dispute in the matter revolves around the ownership of the second applicant.  The first applicant claims to hold the entire shareholding in the second applicant in that he avers that he owns all the twenty (20) issued shares in the second applicant.  He claimed to have purchased the second applicant as a shelf company on 25 March 2011 where-after he invested in the company which became a going concern.  The second respondent carries on business specializing in technical and mining equipment.  The business is domiciled in Harare, Zimbabwe.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            In relation to the applicants’ relationship with the first respondent, the first applicant averred that the first respondent loaned some money to the second applicant as evidenced by a written loan agreement dated 25 March, 2015 entered into by the first respondent as the lender and the second applicant as borrower represented by the first applicant.  The loan was for an amount of $9 million in the form of “equipment machinery and spare parts”.  The purpose of the loan was to be utilized for various purposes set out on the agreement.  In essence the loan was to be utilized for the operations of the first applicant.  The loan was to be repaid by 31 December, 2018.  The first applicant averred that the first respondent was then appointed as a non-executive director in the second applicant to safeguard his interests as a lender.  The first applicant attached a copy of a CR 14 Form dated 19 May, 2015 which shows that the first respondent was appointed a director in the second applicant on 13 January, 2015.  The second and third respondents were as shown on the same CR 14 appointed directors of the second respondent on 19 May, 2015.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            The first applicant averred that in the course of the conduct of the business of the second applicant’s, operations bank accounts were opened by him on behalf of the second applicant with him, the first applicant as the sole signatory.  Accounts were opened with STANBIC and FBC Banks.  The first applicant attached copies of the resolutions of the directors of the second applicant who included the second and third respondents authorizing the first applicant to represent the second respondent in the opening of the accounts aforesaid and further to be the sole signatory on the accounts.  The first applicant averred that he has always been the Chief Executive of the second respondent.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            The first applicant averred that the first respondent without a board resolution nor engaging in consultations with him purported to take over negotiations for payments of outstanding payments due to the second applicant by one of its major customers and debtor namely the Zimbabwe Consolidated Diamond Company (ZCDC).  ZCDC had an equipment hire contract with the second applicant.  The contract had run from 2016 to 2020.  The second applicant in terms of the equipment hire arrangements hired out its machinery to ZCDC for which payment was due.  The first applicant averred that the first respondent by letter dated 18 March, 2021 and addressed to Mr Mabudu the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of ZCDC advised ZCDC to hold over talks on settlement of amounts due and owing to the second applicant until the first respondent had arrived in Harare around April 2021.  The first respondent followed up on the letter with another letter dated 21 Apri8l 2021 addressed to the Chief Financial Officer of ZCDC, a Mr Gobvu.  The first respondent in the said letter listed two bank accounts to which he directed that future and current payments towards the second applicant’s dues should be directed or deposited.  The two accounts were listed as Get Buck Bank Account No. 001203000000423 being a $ZWL denominated account and account No. 001206000000086 being an FCA denominated account.  The creation of these accounts and deposits made therein largely ground the dispute amongst the parties.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            It was common cause that deposits and debit transactions were made on the account aforesaid as from 1 January, 2021.  The first applicant averred that not only were the bank accounts opened without his knowledge or a valid resolution, but that the respondents abused deposits made therein by misappropriating the money.  The first applicant deposed that he made a report to the police against the respondents who, however, were not arrested on account of police failing to locate them.  The first applicant further attached bank statements showing further debits made in the period to 15 July, 2021.  It is not possible to conclude that all the debits made represented genuine company expenditure.  What discerns the eye however, is that several payments were made to supermarkets and the restaurants apart from payments to several other shops.  Those easily catching the eye were payments to TM Borrowdale, Café Nush, Great Wall Restaurant, Bon Marche Brooke, Lion and Cheetah Park and others.  As I have indicated, apart from raising the eye, there would need to be conduct an audit of the books of accounts of the second applicant to get a clearer picture of the presence or otherwise of misappropriation of funds.  The first applicant averred that the transactions on the two accounts were not supported by any account books or invoices hence suggesting that the expenses were not for the company business.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            The first applicant averred that the respondents continued to misappropriate funds and to misuse the name of the second applicant for their own ends.  The relationship of the parties became frosty and toxic to the point that they took each other to court in case number HC 4405/21 wherein the claim was for harassment of the second applicant’s employees who were purportedly dismissed by the respondents who had taken steps to subject the employees to a disciplinary hearing.  Case number HC 4405/21 was determined by <span style="font-variant:small-caps">Tsanga J</span> who noted that the second applicant was indeed embroiled in a shareholder and director dispute which required resolution.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            The first applicant avered that he then caused the issue of summons against the respondents in case number HC 4541/21 for a declaration to the effect that the first and second respondents committed a fraud against the second applicant in the period March 2021 and August 2021 and further that they be declared to have misappropriated the second applicant’s funds totaling USD$1 300 000.00 in the period January 20212 to August 2021.  The amount was made up of credits of $ USD300 486.67 deposited on 27 April, 2021; $USD500 000.00 deposited on 20 May, 2021 and $USD500 000.00 deposited on 20 May, 2021.  The other relief claimed on the summons is that the second and third respondents should re-imburse the USD$1 300 000.00 with 5% <i>mora</i> interest.  Further the applicants prayed for an order for removal of the second and third respondents as directors of the second applicant and a further order that the first applicant appoints new directors to replace the second and third respondents and costs of suit.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            The applicants followed up the summons case by filing this urgent application for a provisional order wherein the applicants prayed for an interdict in the interim.  The details of the provisional order are as follows:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            <b>TERMS OF THE FINAL ORDER SOUGHT</b></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">That you show cause to this Honourable Court why a final order should not be made in the following terms –</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <ol><li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The 1<sup>st</sup> and 2<sup>nd</sup> Respondents be and are hereby interdicted from operating account numbers ZWL 001203000000423 and FCA001206000000086 held under Getbucks Bank in the name of second applicant in any way so as to prejudice the second Applicant’s rights and without the first Applicant’s knowledge pending the determination of HC 4541/2021.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:72px; text-align:justify"> </p> <ol start="2"><li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The Respondents’ conduct be and is hereby declared to have caused a deadlock in the second Applicant company, thereby creating irreparable prejudice and harm to the said second Applicant.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:48px"> </p> <ol start="3"><li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The Respondents’ operation of an account in the name of the second Applicant with Getbucks under ZWL 001203000000423 and FCA001206000000086 be and is hereby declared to be an abdication of their duty of care as espoused under the Companies and Other Business Entities Act [<i>Chapter 24:31</i>].</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:48px"> </p> <ol start="4"><li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Any transactions entered into between the Respondents and other entities pursuant to paragraph one and two herein are declared invalid and thus set aside.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:48px"> </p> <ol start="5"><li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The resignation of 3<sup>rd</sup> Respondent as director and company secretary of second Applicant be declared binding on him and of force and effect and consequently, any and all resolutions signed by 3<sup>rd</sup> Respondent be declared null and void and he be barred from representing the second Applicant in any capacity.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:48px"> </p> <ol start="6"><li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Respondents shall pay costs of this suit on a legal practitioner and client scale.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:48px"> </p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">TERMS OF THE INTERIM RELIEF GRANTED</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Pending the determination of this matter on the return date, the applicants are granted the following relief:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <ol><li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The 1<sup>st</sup> and 2<sup>nd</sup> Respondents be and are hereby interdicted from operating account number ZWL 001203000000423 and FCA001206000000086 held under Getbucks Bank in the name of second Applicant in any way so as to prejudice the second Applicant’s rights and without the first Applicant’s knowledge pending the determination of HC 4541/2021.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:72px; text-align:justify"> </p> <ol start="2"><li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The 1<sup>st</sup> and 2<sup>nd</sup> Respondents be and are hereby interdicted from accessing and misappropriating funds from any of the second Applicant’s bank accounts pending the determination of HC 4541/2021.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:48px"> </p> <ol start="3"><li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The Respondents be and are hereby interdicted from posing out the public or soliciting business as a parallel second Applicant pending the determination of HC 4541/2021.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:48px"> </p> <ol start="4"><li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The 3<sup>rd</sup> Respondent be interdicted from acting or presenting himself as a director and/or company secretary of second Applicant pending determination of HC 4541/2021.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:48px"> </p> <ol start="5"><li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The Respondents be interdicted from conducting a disciplinary hearing on the 15<sup>th</sup> of September 2021 against second Applicant’s employees pending a determination of HC  4541/2021.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The respondents vehemently opposed the application and filed apposing affidavits. Although there was a challenge to urgency, I nonetheless determined that the matter be heard as an urgent application. It is in the discretion of the court reached upon a proper consideration of the circumstances of each case to pass a matter as urgent and agree to enrol and hear it on an urgent basis. Apart from other considerations, I have always considered with the greatest respect to positions taken in other decided cases that the remarks of <span style="font-variant:small-caps">Makarau J</span> (as she then was) in the case <i>Document Support Centre</i> v <i>Mapuvire</i> HH 117/06 lucidly sets out the most critical consideration in determining whether the matter be heard as an urgent case. The learned judge stated on p 4 of the cyclostyled judgment.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-ZW">“….. In my view urgent applications are those where if the courts fail to act, the applicants may well be within their rights to dismissively suggest to the court that it should not bother to act subsequently as the position would have become irreversible and irreversibly so to the prejudice of the applicant.</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-ZW">It is in my view that the issue of urgency is not tested subjectively. Most, litigants would like to see their disputes resolved as soon as they approach the courts. The test to be employed appears to me to be an objective one where the court has to be satisfied that the relief sought is such that it cannot want without irreparably prejudicing the legal interest concerned.”</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">In casu</span></span></span></i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">, it was my view that the second respondent as a legal <i>persona</i> needed to be protected by the court from having its assets in the form of the USD $1 300 000.00 dissipated without a proper account as this could lead to the demise of the second applicant. The parties’ positions clearly indicated a poisoned corporate discord amongst the shareholders and directors of the company wherein there were existing accounts held with Stanbic and FBC banks from which the second applicant’s operations were conducted with the first respondent coming in and causing the opening of the Get Bucks accounts and directing a divergence of funds due by ZCDC to the second applicant to the new account which was now operated by the respondents to the exclusion of the first applicant who however solely signed the existing account. Where a dispute albeit of a commercial nature involves an internal fight for the control of a company and the facts established show that the protagonists being shareholders and or directors of the company even though their positions be disputed have set up parallel centres of power and have diverted company assets and individually control them, a court is justified to urgently intervene to serve the corporate <i>persona</i> from being destroyed from within because of the bickering in ownership. Such urgent intervention ensures that the corporate <i>persona</i> remains afloat. In that way, upon the dispute being resolved, the protagonists will still have something to fight for. Besides, the demise of the company has ripple effects to workers, creditors and other interested parties. A juristic <i>persona</i> may therefore in appropriate circumstances be in need of protective relief for its survival pending resolution of disputes which impact negatively on its very existence.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Thus, despite the protestation on the lack of urgency of the matter raised by the respondents, I was inclined to allow the application to proceed to be heard on merits on the urgent roll. The serious dispute of ownership and control of the second applicant and the creation of parallel management centres of power and financial operations called from an urgent enquiry into the matter. In fact the first respondent stated as follows in para 35 of his opposing affidavit:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">            <span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-ZW">“35. AD PALAGRAPH 5</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-ZW">This is admitted save to state that the first applicant is currently not the Managing Director. The second applicant resolved to change the bank accounts after realizing that the first applicant was misappropriating funds and embezzling second applicant funds abusing the fact he was the sole signatory to the Stanbic and FBC Accounts.”</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The above position clearly showed turmoil in the second applicant because the Stanbic and FBC accounts were not closed. The first applicant remained the sole signatory on the said accounts. The respondents were in control of a newly opened account with Get Bucks Bank. A  company cannot operate like that. Urgency was beckoning, calling upon the court to accept to deal with the matter urgently. I obliged in the exercise of my discretion.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The next points <i>in limine</i> were an objection that the court did not have jurisdiction to deal with the application. The first and second respondents raised the issue. The third respondent objected that the first applicant did not have <i>locus standi</i> to seek the relief he was seeking on account of his being neither a minority nor majority shareholder of the second applicant. In this regard and to place the nature of the application into perspective the applicants claimed to bring a derivative action under s 62 of the Companies and Other Business Entities Act [<i>Chapter</i> <i>24:31</i>]. In summary the provisions of that section allows a member or shareholder of a company or business corporation to bring an action in such person’s name and on behalf of the company against any manager, director of officer to enforce or recover from the officer, manager or director damages caused by violations of duties owed to the company under that Act or any other law including laws against fraud and misappropriation. Remedies claimable are provided for in s 62. I shall revert to this when I discuss the nature of the relief sought herein.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">In relation to jurisdiction. The argument put forward by the first respondents was that because the previous of s 61 of the Companies and Other Business Entities Act [<i>Chapter 24:31</i>] permitted a member to bring a derivative “action”, the use of the word action precluded the bringing of proceedings contemplated therein by way of application. I disagreed with that interpretation in judgment HH 550/21.  The first and second respondents under case Number HC 382/21 appealed against the judgment upon my finding that the court had jurisdiction to deal with the dispute, through motion proceedings as opposed to a summons or action procedure.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Consequent on the filing of the appeal SC 382/21 argument was presented on the effects of the notice of appeal on the continuity of the hearing of the application. As it was my view that the appeal was noted against an interlocking order without leave, and that the court‘s jurisdiction could not be ousted by the noted appeal. The first and second respondents then filed an application to the Supreme Court under case No SC 402/21 for an order of stay of the continued hearing of this application pending appeal No SC 382/21. In the light of the pendency of case No SC 402/21, the hearing of this application was then postponed pending the decision on the application for stay aforesaid by the Supreme Court.  I dealt with the application on 24 November, 2021 when the parties advised that the first and second applicants had withdrawn case Number SC 402/21. The hearing of this application could therefore continue following my determination that the appeal challenge on jurisdiction to the Supreme Court did not suspend the hearing of this application.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">And then there had been a development which changed the character of the application. On 1 October, 2021 the first and second respondents purported to place the second applicant under voluntary corporate rescue in terms of s 122 of the Insolvency Act, [<i>Chapter 6:07</i>]<i>.</i> They appointed one Alexious Dera of INA Chartered Accountants as the Corporate Rescue Practitioner as provided for in s 122(3)(a) of the Insolvency Act. On 6 October, 2021 the Master of the High Court formalized the appointment of the corporate reserve practitioner and issued a certificate of appointment of the said Alexious M. Dera as such. The appointment was challenged in an urgent application filed by the first applicant challenging the process of and the said appointment. The challenge was filed under case No 5436/21. It became necessary to await the outcome of the application because the outcome would define the <i>locus standi</i> of the second applicant as well as the nature of its participation in the application since the effect of corporate reserve is inter alia to stay proceedings against the company.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Case Number HC 5436/21 was determined by <span style="font-variant:small-caps">Musithu</span> J in judgments HH 650/21 and HH 668/21. The learned judge suspended the operation of the resolution executed by the first and second therein as they are herein placing the second applicant herein under corporate reserve. The first and second applicants appealed against the judgment. The appeal reference is case Number 463/21.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">To complete the picture I can now upon reference to records on the matter record that the first applicant filed an application for leave to execute <span style="font-variant:small-caps">Musithu</span> J’s order pending appeal under case Number 6970/21. The application was granted by WAMAMBO J on 12 January 2022. This development however took place after the present application had been argued before me on 30 November, 2021. As at 30 November 2021, the corporate rescue practitioner was still a part of the proceedings by virtue of the appeal filed against the judgment of <span style="font-variant:small-caps">Musithu</span> J.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">On 30 November, 2021, the application proceeded to be heard since the application for stay of hearing pending the hearing of the appeal against my order that my judgment was not suspended by notice of appeal had been withdrawn and /or parties had before the Supreme Court agreed that this application is determined to finality. The corporate rescue practitioner was joined as a respondent in his capacity as such in relation to the second applicant. It was submitted that the corporate rescue practitioner wanted the second applicant under corporate rescue to be a respondent and to cease to be an applicant. The position suggested was legally untenable because the second applicant already had affidavits and documents filed as an applicant. The affidavits and documents aforesaid could not transform to opposing papers. After submissions made by counsel, the second applicant represented by the corporate rescue practitioner withdrew from the application.  Counsel agreed that the application proceeds without the second applicant.  The matter was then argued on the merits. I shall continue to refer to this second applicant company such for convenience.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            Counsel for the first applicant submitted that the first applicant was a shareholder of the second applicant and enjoyed derivative powers under the common law and statute to seek the relief he sought in the application.  There is on the other hand an acceptance that the first applicant is a director of the second applicant.  He was not consulted when the accounts in issue on this application were opened and subsequently operated without his involvement.  There was no valid resolution of the second applicant passed prior to opening the account.  The first responded admitted in his opposing affidavit that he is the one who opened the accounts because the first applicant as sole signatory was misappropriating the second applicant’s funds in the Stanbic and FBC accounts as sole signatory.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            Counsel argued that a run-down of the debts and withdrawals done on the accounts showed that they were not for operational costs since most of them were for personal expenditure in supermarkets and restaurants.  Counsel argued that it was necessary for the court to regulate the subject matter of the <i>lis</i> HC 4541/21 in order that the matter did not become academic.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            Counsel for the first and second respondents submitted that a special plea had been filed in case number HC 4541/21 to which the first applicant had not responded and was barred for failure to file heads of argument.  I have noted that the special plea was withdrawn on 11 November, 2021.  That puts paid to the argument based on an alleged bar against the first and second applicants. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            The first and second respondents submitted that the first applicant was not a shareholder or member of the second applicant.  It was submitted that since the derivative action envisaged by s 62 of the Companies and other Business Entities Act should be brought by shareholders or members, the first applicant lacked <i>locus standi</i>.  This argument could only be properly determined on the return date.  There is acceptance by all parties that there is a dispute on the shareholding of the second applicant.  The prayer sought herein is for an interim interdict pending the determination of the action filed in case number HC 4541/21.  The requirements for an interim interdict are settled.  </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            They are:-</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <ol style="list-style-type:lower-alpha"><li style="margin-left:56px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">a <i>prima facie</i> right which may be open to some doubt.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:56px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">a well-grounded apprehension for irreparable harm of the interim relief be not granted.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:56px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">the balance of convenience favours the grant of the interdict.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:56px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">no other satisfactory remedy.  See <i>Mushoriwa </i>v<i> City of Harare</i> HH 195/14; <i>Broadcasting Authority of Zimbabwe &amp; Anor </i>v<i> Dr Dish (Pvt) Ltd</i> SC 62/18; and <i>ARTUZ &amp; Anor </i>v<i> Zanu (PF) &amp; Anor</i> HMA 36/18.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            The first applicant has demonstrated more than a <i>prima facie</i> right to the relief sought.  He attached a copy of his share certificate which <i>prima facie</i> evidences his shareholding in the second applicant.  The first and second respondents disputed the first applicant’s shareholding.  This is a factual matter to be determined on the return date or in case number HC 4541/21.  The first applicants’ fear of irreparable harm was well grounded.  The second respondent admitted that the accounts in issue were opened by him without the first applicant’s involvement even as director.  The purpose of the accounts appeared to have been to receive payments from ZCDC and to disburse them without the involvement of the first applicant even as director.  The balance of convenience favours the grant of the interdict.   In this regard I quote the remarks of <span style="font-variant:small-caps">Musithu J</span> in the case of <i>Ofer Sivan </i>v<i> Gilad Shabtai &amp; 3 Ors</i> HH 668/21 wherein the learned judge stated on p 8 of the cyclostyled judgement:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">            <span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-ZW">“The purpose of a provisional order or an interlocutory injuction as it is called in some         jurisdiction was explained in the English case of <i>Attorney General </i>v<i> Punch Limited &amp; Anor        2002 UKHL </i>50 as follows:-</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-ZW">                        ‘The purpose for which the court grants an interlocutory injuction can be stated quite                        simply.  In <i>American Cyanamid Co </i>v<i> Ethicon Ltd</i> 1975 AC 396, 405 Lord DIPLOCK                       described it as a remedy which is both temporary and discretionary.  Its purpose is to                        regulate, and where possible to preserve the rights of the parties pending the final                 determination of the matter which is in issue”.</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-ZW">            There are genuine concerns on the part of the first applicant </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">that if the disputed accounts are not protected from withdrawal by the first and second respondents, there will be nothing left of that money to the prejudice of the first applicant’s rights.  As far as the balance of convenience is concerned there will be no irreparable harm to be suffered by the first and second respondents since the accounts will remain frozen.  At the same time the second applicant having withdrawn from the application and not filed any papers to set out its position it will have to abide the decision of the court.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Counsel submitted that there were material disputes of fact not capable of resolution on the papers.  This again is an argument to be resolved on the return date. For purposes of the interim order the court is obliged to grant the provisional order if on the papers, the court is satisfied that the applicant has established a <i>prim facie</i> case either on the terms proposed by the applicant in the draft order or as varied.  I have already indicated that the second applicant is being run on parallel management structures whereby the first applicant is signatory to a set of accounts.  His authority to do so is not disputed.  The first and second respondents control the accounts in issue here which were opened in disputed circumstances.  Those accounts cannot remain at the whim and control of the first and second respondents.  The second applicant must be protected from having its assets being dissipated in unclear circumstances.  The first and second respondent in their affidavit averred that the first applicant did not have or produce books of account to evidence his claim that the accounts were being abused.  This is a strange submission because on the contrary the first and second respondents are the ones who must show that they put the money to beneficial company uses.  They did not even offer to submit to an audit to clear that the withdrawals were genuinely done for the benefit of the second applicant.  </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The only other argument advanced was that the relief sought was similar both in the interim and final reliefs sought.  I agree that para (s) 1 on the interim and final reliefs are similar.  I do not consider the similarities in the relief sought to be fatal to the application because the court is permitted to grant a varied order which adequately protects the subject matter of the main dispute.  The critical issue in an application for an urgent provisional order is to ensure that the second respondent’s funds are protected.  The remedy should not be a contentious one because there is no loser or winner if an order to preserve the money is granted.  It is a win win order for the warring parties.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The first applicant has also prayed for orders that the respondents must be interdicted from posing as directors of the second applicant and soliciting for business as a parallel second applicant.  The circumstances of the case justify the grant of such an order in part because the second applicant evidently gave contrary and unilateral instructions to a creditor to deposit money belonging to the second applicant into accounts specially opened for the purpose and the accounts were run without the knowledge of the first applicant.  I cannot however grant an order that the first and second respondents should not pose as directors of the second applicant because they in fact remain directors until validly removed.  As far as the third respondent posing as director is concerned, the third respondent indicated that he was no longer a director or company secretary of the second applicant and in any event, he stated that he was standing by his papers filed of record.  As far as the prayer to stop the conducting of disciplinary hearings of the second applicants’ employees is concerned, such an order amounts to a pre mature interference in the domestic affairs of a corporate.  The employees concerned are not party to this application.  They can assert their rights separately.  </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">This order does not negate the corporate rescue status of the company which is under challenge.  The corporate rescue practitioner is free to seek a variation or discharge of the order in the event that he needs to access and use the funds in those accounts which will be frozen by this order.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">In the result, the provisional order will issue as varied in the interim relief which shall now read as follows:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Pending the determination of this matter on the return date the following relief is granted:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <ol><li style="text-align:justify; margin-left:8px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The first and second respondents are interdicted from operating the following accounts pending the determination of Case No. HC 4541/21 or an order as made to the contrary: Getbucks in the name of Adlecraft Investments (Pvt) Ltd </span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><ol style="list-style-type:lower-alpha"><li style="margin-left:56px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">$ZWL 001203000000423 </span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:56px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">FCA001206000000086</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><ol start="2"><li style="text-align:justify; margin-left:8px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The first and second respondents shall not solicit for business on behalf of Adlecraft Investments (Pvt) Ltd applicant outside of the knowledge and consent of the first applicant who is their co-director.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">G Sithole Law Chambers</span></span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">, 1<sup>st</sup> applicant’s legal practitioners</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Mabulala &amp; Dembure</span></span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">, 2<sup>nd</sup> applicant’s legal practitioners</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Rubaya &amp; Chatambudza</span></span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">, 1<sup>st</sup> and 2<sup>nd</sup> respondents’ respondent’s legal practitioners</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">C Nhemwa &amp; Associates</span></span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">, 3<sup>rd</sup> respondent’s legal practitioners</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p></span></div></div> </div> </div> Tue, 26 Apr 2022 10:52:21 +0000 Sandra Muengwa 12404 at http://zimlii.org Rutsate v Wedzerai and 7 Others (45 of 2022) [2022] ZWSC 45 (29 March 2022); http://zimlii.org/zw/judgment/supreme-court-zimbabwe/2022/45 <span class="field field--name-title field--type-string field--label-hidden">Rutsate v Wedzerai and 7 Others (45 of 2022) [2022] ZWSC 45 (29 March 2022);</span> <div class="field field--name-field-flynote field--type-entity-reference field--label-above"> <div class="field__label">Flynote</div> <div class='field__items'> <div class="field__item"><a href="/taxonomy/term/1566" hreflang="en">Jurisdiction</a></div> <div class="field__item"><a href="/taxonomy/term/1646" hreflang="en">Interlocutory Injunction</a></div> <div class="field__item"><a href="/taxonomy/term/1820" hreflang="en">African customary law and rights of indigenous peoples</a></div> </div> </div> <span class="field field--name-uid field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden"><span>Sandra Muengwa</span></span> <span class="field field--name-created field--type-created field--label-hidden">Tue, 04/05/2022 - 07:11</span> <div class="field field--name-field-files field--type-file field--label-above"> <div class="field__label">Download</div> <div class='field__items'> <div class="field__item"> <span class="file file--mime-application-vnd-openxmlformats-officedocument-wordprocessingml-document file--x-office-document"> <a href="https://media.zimlii.org/files/judgments/zwsc/2022/45/2022-zwsc-45.docx" type="application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document; length=47117">2022-zwsc-45.docx</a></span> </div> <div class="field__item"> <span class="file file--mime-application-pdf file--application-pdf"> <a href="https://media.zimlii.org/files/judgments/zwsc/2022/45/2022-zwsc-45.pdf" type="application/pdf; length=489844">2022-zwsc-45.pdf</a></span> </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-body field--type-text-with-summary field--label-hidden field__item"><p align="right" style="text-align:right"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Judgment No. SC 45/22</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p align="right" style="text-align:right"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Civil Appeal No. SC 557/19</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="tab-stops:99.25pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><u><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">REPORTABLE</span></span></span></u></b><b><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">     (35)</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></span></p> <p align="center" style="text-align:center"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">RUTSATE     RUTSATE</span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p align="center" style="text-align:center"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="tab-stops:center 225.65pt right 451.3pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">v</span></span></b></span></span></span></span></p> <p align="center" style="margin-left:12px; text-align:center; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">(1)     NDAVENI     WEDZERAI     (2)     MUDYANADZO     CHIMOMBE     (3)     JOHN     MUDYANADZO     (4)     ABIAS BOTE     (5)     SHAMU     MUDYANADZO     (6)     TSAURAI     MUDYANADZO     (7)     MINISTER     OF      LOCAL     GOVERNMENT     (8)     DISTRICT     ADMINISTRATOR,     GUTU</span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">SUPREME COURT OF ZIMBABWE </span></span></b></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">GUVAVA JA, BHUNU JA &amp; KUDYA JA</span></span></b></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="tab-stops:306.6pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">HARARE: 27 OCTOBER 2020 &amp; 29 MARCH 2022             </span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">T. Tandi, </span></span></span></i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">for the appellant</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">S. Mushonga, </span></span></span></i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">for the respondents</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">GUVAVA JA: </span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <ol><li style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">This is an appeal against the whole interlocutory judgment of the High Court (the court <i>a quo) </i>sitting at Harare dated 5 June 2019<i>. </i>The court <i>a quo</i> found that it had jurisdiction to hear and determine the appeal involving a chieftainship dispute. Leave to appeal was granted by the court <i>a quo</i> on 4 October 2019.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:38px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">FACTUAL BACKGROUND</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <ol start="2"><li style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The dispute in this matter revolves around the question of the right to rule the Chimombe clan. The wrangle highlights the issue which has been vexing the court <i>a quo</i> for some time. Various decisions have emanated from the High Court on whether or not they have the jurisdiction to determine matters relating to chieftainship disputes. </span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:38px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-1.0cm"> </p> <ol start="3"><li style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The appellant was appointed as Chief Chimombe in terms of the Traditional Leaders Act [<i>Chapter 29:17</i>]. The date of his appointment is not apparent from the papers. He is currently the substantive Chief Chimombe. In 2010, following the appellant’s appointment as Chief, a dispute arose between the appellant and the first to sixth respondents (‘the respondents’) concerning his appointment. The respondents instituted legal proceedings under HC 8077/10 challenging the appointment of the appellant as the chief. They alleged that the appellant’s appointment as Chief Chimombe was wrong, illegal and against the customary practice of the Chimombe family and the Karanga clan. They asserted that as members of the Mudyanadzo dynasty, they were the rightful heirs to the chieftaincy.  </span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:38px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-1.0cm"> </p> <ol start="4"><li style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The respondents based their argument on the contention that the Chimombe Chieftainship devolves only in the Mudyanadzo family and does not extend to descendants of his brothers. They contended that the appellant, not being a direct descendant of Mudyanadzo-Chimombe clan, was not eligible to the throne of Chief Chimombe.  The respondents argued that the installation of the appellant by the seventh and eighth respondents was wrong, unprocedural and contrary to the Chimombe Clan or generality of the Karanga Tribes of Masvingo. They further contended that the appellant’s chieftainship violated the provisions of the Traditional Leaders Act [<i>Chapter 29:17</i>] (‘the Traditional Leaders Act’).  As such the respondents sought an order nullifying and setting aside the appellant’s appointment as chief.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:38px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-1.0cm"> </p> <p style="margin-left:38px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-1.0cm"> </p> <ol start="5"><li style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The seventh and eighth respondents opposed the application and filed a special plea to the effect that the High Court had no jurisdiction to deal with the matter as the sole discretion to deal with chieftaincy matters rested with the President in terms of the Traditional Leaders Act as read with s 31K of the Constitution of Zimbabwe (1980) (‘the old Constitution’). The court under HH 413/12 upheld the special plea in bar and dismissed the first to sixth respondents’ claim.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:38px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-1.0cm"> </p> <ol start="6"><li style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The respondents consequently appealed to this Court under SC 362/12. This Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment under HH 413/12 and made an order for continuation of the trial.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <ol start="7"><li style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Upon remittal of the matter, the appellant raised a point of law relating to whether or not the High Court had jurisdiction to hear the matter. The appellant contended that the jurisdiction of the High Court to hear the matter was ousted by s 283 of the New Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment (No. 20) Act, 2013 (‘the Constitution’). His argument was that the new provision in the Constitution provides that any dispute concerning chieftainship is now dealt with by the President. </span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:38px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-1.0cm"> </p> <ol start="8"><li style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The respondents on the other hand maintained that the High Court had jurisdiction to hear the matter on the basis that the matter had commenced prior to the coming into effect of the Constitution. As such, they argued that it is a principle of statutory interpretation that the legislature will not take away existing rights in retrospect unless the law specifically states the same. </span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:38px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-1.0cm"> </p> <p style="margin-left:38px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The parties agreed that the matter would proceed by way of a Stated Case. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"> </p> <p style="margin-left:38px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"> </span></span></span></p> <ol start="9"><li style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">After hearing the parties’ submissions, the court <i>a quo</i> determined that it had jurisdiction to deal with the dispute concerning the chieftainship of the appellant.  It reasoned that since the summons in the case had been issued in 2010 before the coming into effect of the Constitution which now provides that the mandate to handle such disputes is in the office of the President, it had jurisdiction to hear the matter. </span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:47px; text-align:justify"> </p> <ol start="10"><li style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Aggrieved by the court <i>a quo’s</i> findings the appellant noted an appeal to this Court on the basis of the following grounds:</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:112px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-27.8pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="tab-stops:63.8pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">  “1.The court <i>a quo</i> grossly erred in finding that it had jurisdiction to determine the matter.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:112px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-27.8pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="tab-stops:63.8pt 3.0cm"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">  2.            The court <i>a quo</i> committed an error in law in its interpretation of paragraph 18(9) of the sixth schedule of the Constitution of Zimbabwe which led it to come to a wrong conclusion.”</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">SUBMISSIONS BEFORE THIS COURT</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <ol start="11"><li style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">In motivating the appeal, counsel for the appellant Mr <i>Tandi </i>argued that the gravamen of the matter was that the court <i>a quo</i> had no jurisdiction to hear the matter. Counsel submitted that s 283 of the Constitution sets out the procedure relating to resolution of chieftainship disputes. Counsel further argued that the position of the law is that chieftainship wrangles must now be resolved by the President on the recommendations of the Provincial Assembly of Chiefs. It was his submission that the section is unambiguous as it is expressed in clear terms.  He further submitted that the legal position is that the power to appoint, remove or suspend a chief is a responsibility exclusively bestowed upon the President of Zimbabwe. Counsel thus contended that the court <i>a quo</i> misdirected itself in finding that it had jurisdiction to hear the matter when its jurisdiction was ousted by s 283 of the Constitution. Counsel subsequently sought to have the appeal allowed coupled with an order setting aside the court <i>a quo’s</i> judgment.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:38px; text-align:justify"> </p> <ol start="12"><li style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Counsel for the respondent Mr<i> Mushonga, per contra</i> argued that, from the record it was clear that the matter had commenced before the court <i>a quo</i> in 2010. This was before the advent of the Constitution and as such the law could not apply with retrospective effect. He submitted that there was nothing in the language of the section that would imply an intention to have retrospective application. He contended that para 18(9) of the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution provides that all cases that were pending before any court before the effective date shall continue before that court and the procedure to be applicable to those cases must be the procedure that was operating before the effective date.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"> </p> <p style="margin-left:57px; text-align:justify"> </p> <ol start="13"><li style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">He thus argued that the court <i>a quo</i> had correctly found that it had jurisdiction to deal with the matter considering the fact that the first to sixth respondents’ rights under s 31K of the old Constitution were not taken away by the coming into effect of the new Constitution which has no retrospective application.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:47px; text-align:justify"> </p> <ol start="14"><li style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Only one issue arises for determination from the appellant’s grounds of appeal and submissions made by counsel before this Court. We are also indebted to the appellant’s counsel for filing supplementary heads of argument. The issue for determination by this Court is whether or not the court <i>a quo</i> erred in finding that it had jurisdiction to hear and determine the application before it.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:right 451.3pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">APPLICATION OF THE LAW TO THE FACTS                                                                 </span></span></span></b></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:38px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-1.0cm; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:right 451.3pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">15.     Section 283 of the Constitution, which has triggered this dispute provides as follows:</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:84px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="tab-stops:63.8pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">“<b>283 </b>An Act of Parliament must provide for the following, in accordance with the prevailing culture, customs, traditions and practices of the communities concerned—</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <ol style="list-style-type:lower-alpha"><li style="margin-left:92px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">the appointment, suspension, succession and removal of traditional leaders;</span></span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:92px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">the creation and resuscitation of chieftainships; and</span></span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:92px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">the resolution of disputes concerning the appointment, suspension, succession and removal of traditional leaders; but—</span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><ol style="list-style-type:lower-roman"><li style="margin-left:111px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">the appointment, removal and suspension of Chiefs must be done by the President on the recommendation of the provincial assembly of Chiefs through the National Council of Chiefs and the Minister responsible for traditional leaders and in accordance with the traditional practices and traditions of the communities concerned;</span></span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:111px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">disputes concerning the appointment, suspension and removal of traditional leaders must be resolved by the President on the recommendation of the provincial assembly of Chiefs through the Minister responsible for traditional leaders;</span></span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:92px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="tab-stops:3.0cm"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">  the Act must provide measures to ensure that all these matters are </span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:132px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="tab-stops:4.0cm"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">     dealt with fairly and without regard to political considerations;</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <ol start="4" style="list-style-type:lower-roman"><li style="margin-left:111px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">the Act must provide measures to safeguard the integrity of traditional institutions and their independence from political interference.”</span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:170px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-left:170px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-left:170px; text-align:justify"> </p> <ol start="16"><li style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Section 283(c)(ii) of the Constitution thus provides for the settlement of disputes concerning the appointment, suspension and removal of chiefs. Such disputes must be resolved by the President on the recommendation of the Provincial Assembly of Chiefs through the Minister responsible for traditional leaders. The above provision was introduced in order to provide a domestic resolution mechanism for disputes on the appointment and removal of chiefs which had become rampant. It should be noted that s 283 further provides that an Act of Parliament must provide for the above mechanism.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <ol start="17"><li style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">In dealing with a matter that called for the interpretation of s 283 of the Constitution, Patel JA (as he then was), had this to say in <i>Marange v Marange</i><b> </b><i>&amp; Others</i> SC 01/21:</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:84px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">“..section 283 of the Constitution does not constitute the actual code that governs the appointment and removal of chiefs or the resolution of disputes in that connection. What s283 does is to enunciate the template to be applied in the formation and implementation of that code……. As I have already stated, s 283 of the Constitution is not a substantive provision that impacts directly on the law governing the appointment and removal of traditional leaders. Rather, it declares what that law should provide in regulating, <i>inter alia</i>, the resolution of chieftainship disputes. Consequently, it cannot be construed, <i>per se</i>, as ousting the jurisdiction of the courts over such disputes.” </span></span></span></span></span></p> <ol start="18"><li style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">It appears from the above case that</span></span></span><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"> s 283 cannot be construed as a substantive provision. It merely allows the Legislature to craft a law that will operationalize the Constitutional provision. The Traditional Leaders Act which deals with such issues has not been amended following the coming into effect of the Constitution. It is however of note that para 10 of the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution provides that existing laws must be construed in conformity with the Constitution. </span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:47px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-left:47px; text-align:justify"> </p> <ol start="19"><li style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">It seems to me that, even if it is accepted that s 283 may be construed as a substantive provision, there is nothing in its wording that seems to indicate that it has retrospective application or that it ousts the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court.  The Traditional Leaders Act which is the legislation in force for the appointment and removal of Chiefs does not appear to oust the jurisdiction of the High Court in any way.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:47px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-left:47px; text-align:justify"> </p> <ol start="20"><li style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Section 283 was introduced in the Constitution and only came into operation in May 2013.This was after summons had been issued in this matter in 2010.</span></span></span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"> The principles applicable in order to determine the question of whether or not a statute is intended to operate retrospectively and take away accrued rights have been stated in numerous cases.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-left:38px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">In <i>Curtis v Johannesburg Municipality </i>1906 TS 308 at 311 INNES CJ said:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:76px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">“The general rule is that, in the absence of express provision to the contrary, statutes should be considered as affecting future matters only; and more especially that they should if possible be so interpreted as not to take away rights actually vested at the time of their promulgation.”</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:76px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-left:76px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-left:38px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">In <i>Bell</i> <i>v Voorsitter Van Die Rasklassifikasieraad En Andere</i> 1968(2) SA 678(A) which is in Afrikaans the head note states that:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:84px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">“It is clear that our law accepts the rule that, where a statutory provision is amended, retrospectively or otherwise, while a matter is pending, the rights of the parties to the action, in the absence of a contrary intention, must be decided in accordance with the statutory provisions in force at the time of the institution of the action.”</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:76px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-left:76px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-left:38px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">In <i>Agere v Nyambuya</i> 1985 (2) ZLR 336 (S) at 338 G – 339A GUBBAY JA (as he then was) stated the general rule as follows:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:84px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">“It is a fundamental rule of construction in our law, dating probably from Codex 1:14:7, that there is a strong presumption that retrospective operation is not to be given to an enactment so as to remove or in any way impair existing rights or obligations unless such a construction appears clearly from the language used or arises by necessary implication. For instance, where it is expressly retrospective, or deals with past events, or concerns a matter of procedure, practice or evidence.   The supposition is that the Legislature intends to deal only with future events and circumstances.”</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:76px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"> </p> <p style="margin-left:76px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-left:38px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Lastly, in <i>Nkomo and Anor v Attorney-General and Ors</i> 1993 (2) ZLR 422 (S) GUBBAY CJ at 429 C said:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:84px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">“Care must always be taken to ensure that retrospectivity is confined to the exact extent which the section of the Act provides.”</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:76px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-left:76px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-left:76px; text-align:justify"> </p> <ol start="21"><li style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">From the above authorities, it seems to me that, the guidance emanating from the jurisprudence of our courts is that, firstly, where the Legislature intends that a provision should have retrospective effect it states so in clear and unequivocal terms. (See also Craies on Statute Law (Seventh edition) p 388). Secondly, s 283 of the Constitution does not have retrospective application. There is nothing contained in s 283 of the Constitution or the Traditional Leaders Act that shows an intention to oust the jurisdiction of the High Court in determining disputes relating to the appointment and removal of traditional leaders that had already commenced before the effective date. </span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:47px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-left:47px; text-align:justify"> </p> <ol start="22"><li style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">As was stated in the <i>Marange case</i> (<i>supra</i>) Parliament is at large, subject to the Constitution, to curtail or oust the jurisdiction of any court. However, any such ouster must be effected in clear and unambiguous terms. In this case, even if s 283 of the Constitution were to be regarded as a substantive provision, I am unable to discern anything in its language that might be construed as meant to curtail or oust the jurisdiction of the High Court. </span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:47px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-left:47px; text-align:justify"> </p> <ol start="23"><li style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">There is also nothing contained in the Traditional Leaders Act, which might be taken as effecting any such ouster.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <ol start="24"><li style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">It should be noted that s 283 must be read in conjunction with para 18(9) of the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution which provides as follows:</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:84px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">“(9) All cases, other than pending constitutional cases, that were pending before any court before the effective date may be continued before that court or the equivalent court established by this Constitution, as the case may be, as if this Constitution had been in force when the cases were commenced, but:- </span></span></span></span></span></p> <ol style="list-style-type:lower-alpha"><li style="margin-left:82px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">the procedure to be followed in those cases must be the procedure that was applicable to them immediately before the effective date; and</span></span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:82px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">the procedure referred to in subparagraph (a) applies to those cases even if it is contrary to any provision of this Constitution.”</span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:144px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-left:144px; text-align:justify"> </p> <ol start="25"><li style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Paragraph 18 (9) of the Sixth Schedule is clearly a transitional provision dealing with procedure that affects cases which would have commenced before the effective date. It is a common law principle that a statute, dealing with procedure, applies retrospectively to govern all pending and future proceedings, unless it is provided otherwise. (See Craies on Statute Law <i>supra</i> at p 401-402).  Paragraph 18(9)(a) is such provision which provides contrary to the common law.  It thus alters the common law position.  Paragraph 18 (9)(a) of the sixth schedule allows a matter which has commenced before the effective date of the Constitution to continue in terms of the old procedure. Paragraph 18 (9)(b) leaves the matter in no doubt and expressly provides that even if the procedure is contrary to the new Constitution the old procedure should be followed.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-top:16px; margin-bottom:11px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">It should also be noted that para 18(10)(b) of the Sixth Schedule, places it beyond doubt that s 283 of the Constitution does not divest the High Court of its jurisdiction. It states that for the purposes of para 9 a civil case is deemed to have commenced when summons were issued or the application was filed before a court as the case may be. <i>In casu</i>, summons were issued in 2010 long before the Constitution came into operation. The provisions of s 283 (c)(iii) can only be interpreted as becoming operational relating to matters that arose after the commencement of the Constitution in 2013. For the above reasons the court<i> a quo</i> was correct in finding that it had jurisdiction to entertain the matter.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <ol start="27"><li style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">I was not persuaded by the appellant’s submission that s 283(c)(ii) of the Constitution has retrospective application and has the effect of ousting the jurisdiction of the High Court. I was also not persuaded by the appellant’s submission that the interpretation of s 283 of the Constitution which was given in the <i>Marange</i> case does not apply to the present facts. I take the view that the interpretation given to s 283 in the <i>Marange</i> case (<i>supra</i>) is of general application and is not just <span style="color:black">restricted </span>to reviews.  Whilst I accept that in the <i>Marange</i> case the court was dealing with a review in terms of s 26 of the High Court Act in my view this does not affect in any way the finding in the <i>Marange</i> case that s 283 does not have retrospective application nor does it oust the jurisdiction of the High Court.  It is clear from the facts that in the <i>Marange</i> judgment, the court was dealing with a matter that had commenced after the promulgation of the Constitution.  The court however still found that the jurisdiction of the High Court had not been ousted.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:48px"> </p> <p style="margin-left:47px; text-align:justify"> </p> <ol start="28"><li style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">It is also important to note that the High Court has original jurisdiction to deal with all civil and criminal matters. Section 171(1) (a) of the Constitution provides:</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:84px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">“171. Jurisdiction of High Court </span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">1. The High Court—</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:120px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">a. has original jurisdiction over all civil and criminal matters throughout </span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:120px; text-align:justify; text-indent:9.25pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Zimbabwe”</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:120px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-left:120px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-left:120px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">This section must be read together with s 13 of the High Court Act [<i>Chapter 7:06</i>] which reads as follows:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:113px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-21.25pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">“13.Original Civil Jurisdiction </span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:113px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Subject to this Act and any other law, the High Court shall have full original civil jurisdiction over all persons and over all matters within Zimbabwe.”</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:72px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-left:72px; text-align:justify"> </p> <ol start="29"><li style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The original jurisdiction of the High Court is unlimited, that is to say, it can hear and determine any civil dispute, whatever the nature of the claim. Since s 283 of the Constitution and the Traditional Leaders Act both do not expressly oust the jurisdiction of the High Court from determining traditional leadership disputes, it follows that it still maintains its unlimited original jurisdiction over such matters.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">DISPOSITION</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <ol start="30"><li style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The court <i>a quo</i> correctly found that it had the requisite jurisdiction to hear the matter. Section 283 (c) of the Constitution has vested the power to deal with disputes relating to chieftainship in the President as a domestic resolution mechanism. It is not a substantive provision as it requires operationalization through an Act of Parliament. The provision does not have retrospective application. It does not oust the inherent power of the High Court to determine such matters.  The matter commenced before the court <i>a quo </i>prior to the coming into force of the Constitution in 2013. It was therefore pending when the Constitution was promulgated.  That being the case, it must proceed in terms of para 18(9) of the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution.</span></span></span>      </span></span></span></li> <li style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The respondents have been successful and, as is the norm in respect of such a party, they are entitled to their costs.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:38px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-left:47px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:1.0cm"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">In the result it is ordered as follows:-</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <ol><li style="margin-left:56px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:3.0cm"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The appeal be and is hereby dismissed with costs.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:56px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:3.0cm"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">For the avoidance of doubt the matter is remitted to the court <i>a quo </i>for </span></span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:3.0cm"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">    continuation of trial in terms of the Rules of that Court.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-top:16px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:2.0cm"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">                   BHUNU JA:</span></span></span></b><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">                               I agree</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-top:16px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:2.0cm"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">                   KUDYA JA:</span></span></span></b><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">                               I agree  </span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-top:16px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"> </p> <p style="margin-top:16px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Kantor &amp; Immerman, </span></span></span></i><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">appellant’s legal practitioners</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-top:16px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Mushonga, Mutsvairo &amp; Associates</span></span></span></i><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">, 1<sup>st</sup> -6<sup>th</sup> respondents’ legal practitioners</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> </div> <div class="views-element-container"><div class="view view-eva view-download-conditional view-id-download_conditional view-display-id-entity_view_1 js-view-dom-id-bf14602d94f185b9079523e3acb0722f194580b8b5a304d98b8deb68258583b9"> <div><div class="views-field views-field-views-conditional-field"><span class="field-content"><p align="right" style="text-align:right"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Judgment No. SC 45/22</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p align="right" style="text-align:right"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Civil Appeal No. SC 557/19</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="tab-stops:99.25pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><u><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">REPORTABLE</span></span></span></u></b><b><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">     (35)</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></span></p> <p align="center" style="text-align:center"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">RUTSATE     RUTSATE</span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p align="center" style="text-align:center"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="tab-stops:center 225.65pt right 451.3pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">v</span></span></b></span></span></span></span></p> <p align="center" style="margin-left:12px; text-align:center; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">(1)     NDAVENI     WEDZERAI     (2)     MUDYANADZO     CHIMOMBE     (3)     JOHN     MUDYANADZO     (4)     ABIAS BOTE     (5)     SHAMU     MUDYANADZO     (6)     TSAURAI     MUDYANADZO     (7)     MINISTER     OF      LOCAL     GOVERNMENT     (8)     DISTRICT     ADMINISTRATOR,     GUTU</span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">SUPREME COURT OF ZIMBABWE </span></span></b></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">GUVAVA JA, BHUNU JA &amp; KUDYA JA</span></span></b></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="tab-stops:306.6pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">HARARE: 27 OCTOBER 2020 &amp; 29 MARCH 2022             </span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">T. Tandi, </span></span></span></i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">for the appellant</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">S. Mushonga, </span></span></span></i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">for the respondents</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">GUVAVA JA: </span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <ol><li style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">This is an appeal against the whole interlocutory judgment of the High Court (the court <i>a quo) </i>sitting at Harare dated 5 June 2019<i>. </i>The court <i>a quo</i> found that it had jurisdiction to hear and determine the appeal involving a chieftainship dispute. Leave to appeal was granted by the court <i>a quo</i> on 4 October 2019.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:38px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">FACTUAL BACKGROUND</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <ol start="2"><li style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The dispute in this matter revolves around the question of the right to rule the Chimombe clan. The wrangle highlights the issue which has been vexing the court <i>a quo</i> for some time. Various decisions have emanated from the High Court on whether or not they have the jurisdiction to determine matters relating to chieftainship disputes. </span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:38px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-1.0cm"> </p> <ol start="3"><li style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The appellant was appointed as Chief Chimombe in terms of the Traditional Leaders Act [<i>Chapter 29:17</i>]. The date of his appointment is not apparent from the papers. He is currently the substantive Chief Chimombe. In 2010, following the appellant’s appointment as Chief, a dispute arose between the appellant and the first to sixth respondents (‘the respondents’) concerning his appointment. The respondents instituted legal proceedings under HC 8077/10 challenging the appointment of the appellant as the chief. They alleged that the appellant’s appointment as Chief Chimombe was wrong, illegal and against the customary practice of the Chimombe family and the Karanga clan. They asserted that as members of the Mudyanadzo dynasty, they were the rightful heirs to the chieftaincy.  </span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:38px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-1.0cm"> </p> <ol start="4"><li style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The respondents based their argument on the contention that the Chimombe Chieftainship devolves only in the Mudyanadzo family and does not extend to descendants of his brothers. They contended that the appellant, not being a direct descendant of Mudyanadzo-Chimombe clan, was not eligible to the throne of Chief Chimombe.  The respondents argued that the installation of the appellant by the seventh and eighth respondents was wrong, unprocedural and contrary to the Chimombe Clan or generality of the Karanga Tribes of Masvingo. They further contended that the appellant’s chieftainship violated the provisions of the Traditional Leaders Act [<i>Chapter 29:17</i>] (‘the Traditional Leaders Act’).  As such the respondents sought an order nullifying and setting aside the appellant’s appointment as chief.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:38px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-1.0cm"> </p> <p style="margin-left:38px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-1.0cm"> </p> <ol start="5"><li style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The seventh and eighth respondents opposed the application and filed a special plea to the effect that the High Court had no jurisdiction to deal with the matter as the sole discretion to deal with chieftaincy matters rested with the President in terms of the Traditional Leaders Act as read with s 31K of the Constitution of Zimbabwe (1980) (‘the old Constitution’). The court under HH 413/12 upheld the special plea in bar and dismissed the first to sixth respondents’ claim.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:38px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-1.0cm"> </p> <ol start="6"><li style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The respondents consequently appealed to this Court under SC 362/12. This Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment under HH 413/12 and made an order for continuation of the trial.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <ol start="7"><li style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Upon remittal of the matter, the appellant raised a point of law relating to whether or not the High Court had jurisdiction to hear the matter. The appellant contended that the jurisdiction of the High Court to hear the matter was ousted by s 283 of the New Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment (No. 20) Act, 2013 (‘the Constitution’). His argument was that the new provision in the Constitution provides that any dispute concerning chieftainship is now dealt with by the President. </span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:38px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-1.0cm"> </p> <ol start="8"><li style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The respondents on the other hand maintained that the High Court had jurisdiction to hear the matter on the basis that the matter had commenced prior to the coming into effect of the Constitution. As such, they argued that it is a principle of statutory interpretation that the legislature will not take away existing rights in retrospect unless the law specifically states the same. </span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:38px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-1.0cm"> </p> <p style="margin-left:38px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The parties agreed that the matter would proceed by way of a Stated Case. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"> </p> <p style="margin-left:38px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"> </span></span></span></p> <ol start="9"><li style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">After hearing the parties’ submissions, the court <i>a quo</i> determined that it had jurisdiction to deal with the dispute concerning the chieftainship of the appellant.  It reasoned that since the summons in the case had been issued in 2010 before the coming into effect of the Constitution which now provides that the mandate to handle such disputes is in the office of the President, it had jurisdiction to hear the matter. </span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:47px; text-align:justify"> </p> <ol start="10"><li style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Aggrieved by the court <i>a quo’s</i> findings the appellant noted an appeal to this Court on the basis of the following grounds:</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:112px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-27.8pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="tab-stops:63.8pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">  “1.The court <i>a quo</i> grossly erred in finding that it had jurisdiction to determine the matter.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:112px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-27.8pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="tab-stops:63.8pt 3.0cm"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">  2.            The court <i>a quo</i> committed an error in law in its interpretation of paragraph 18(9) of the sixth schedule of the Constitution of Zimbabwe which led it to come to a wrong conclusion.”</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">SUBMISSIONS BEFORE THIS COURT</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <ol start="11"><li style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">In motivating the appeal, counsel for the appellant Mr <i>Tandi </i>argued that the gravamen of the matter was that the court <i>a quo</i> had no jurisdiction to hear the matter. Counsel submitted that s 283 of the Constitution sets out the procedure relating to resolution of chieftainship disputes. Counsel further argued that the position of the law is that chieftainship wrangles must now be resolved by the President on the recommendations of the Provincial Assembly of Chiefs. It was his submission that the section is unambiguous as it is expressed in clear terms.  He further submitted that the legal position is that the power to appoint, remove or suspend a chief is a responsibility exclusively bestowed upon the President of Zimbabwe. Counsel thus contended that the court <i>a quo</i> misdirected itself in finding that it had jurisdiction to hear the matter when its jurisdiction was ousted by s 283 of the Constitution. Counsel subsequently sought to have the appeal allowed coupled with an order setting aside the court <i>a quo’s</i> judgment.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:38px; text-align:justify"> </p> <ol start="12"><li style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Counsel for the respondent Mr<i> Mushonga, per contra</i> argued that, from the record it was clear that the matter had commenced before the court <i>a quo</i> in 2010. This was before the advent of the Constitution and as such the law could not apply with retrospective effect. He submitted that there was nothing in the language of the section that would imply an intention to have retrospective application. He contended that para 18(9) of the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution provides that all cases that were pending before any court before the effective date shall continue before that court and the procedure to be applicable to those cases must be the procedure that was operating before the effective date.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"> </p> <p style="margin-left:57px; text-align:justify"> </p> <ol start="13"><li style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">He thus argued that the court <i>a quo</i> had correctly found that it had jurisdiction to deal with the matter considering the fact that the first to sixth respondents’ rights under s 31K of the old Constitution were not taken away by the coming into effect of the new Constitution which has no retrospective application.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:47px; text-align:justify"> </p> <ol start="14"><li style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Only one issue arises for determination from the appellant’s grounds of appeal and submissions made by counsel before this Court. We are also indebted to the appellant’s counsel for filing supplementary heads of argument. The issue for determination by this Court is whether or not the court <i>a quo</i> erred in finding that it had jurisdiction to hear and determine the application before it.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:right 451.3pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">APPLICATION OF THE LAW TO THE FACTS                                                                 </span></span></span></b></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:38px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-1.0cm; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:right 451.3pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">15.     Section 283 of the Constitution, which has triggered this dispute provides as follows:</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:84px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="tab-stops:63.8pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">“<b>283 </b>An Act of Parliament must provide for the following, in accordance with the prevailing culture, customs, traditions and practices of the communities concerned—</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <ol style="list-style-type:lower-alpha"><li style="margin-left:92px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">the appointment, suspension, succession and removal of traditional leaders;</span></span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:92px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">the creation and resuscitation of chieftainships; and</span></span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:92px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">the resolution of disputes concerning the appointment, suspension, succession and removal of traditional leaders; but—</span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><ol style="list-style-type:lower-roman"><li style="margin-left:111px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">the appointment, removal and suspension of Chiefs must be done by the President on the recommendation of the provincial assembly of Chiefs through the National Council of Chiefs and the Minister responsible for traditional leaders and in accordance with the traditional practices and traditions of the communities concerned;</span></span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:111px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">disputes concerning the appointment, suspension and removal of traditional leaders must be resolved by the President on the recommendation of the provincial assembly of Chiefs through the Minister responsible for traditional leaders;</span></span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:92px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="tab-stops:3.0cm"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">  the Act must provide measures to ensure that all these matters are </span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:132px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="tab-stops:4.0cm"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">     dealt with fairly and without regard to political considerations;</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <ol start="4" style="list-style-type:lower-roman"><li style="margin-left:111px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">the Act must provide measures to safeguard the integrity of traditional institutions and their independence from political interference.”</span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:170px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-left:170px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-left:170px; text-align:justify"> </p> <ol start="16"><li style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Section 283(c)(ii) of the Constitution thus provides for the settlement of disputes concerning the appointment, suspension and removal of chiefs. Such disputes must be resolved by the President on the recommendation of the Provincial Assembly of Chiefs through the Minister responsible for traditional leaders. The above provision was introduced in order to provide a domestic resolution mechanism for disputes on the appointment and removal of chiefs which had become rampant. It should be noted that s 283 further provides that an Act of Parliament must provide for the above mechanism.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <ol start="17"><li style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">In dealing with a matter that called for the interpretation of s 283 of the Constitution, Patel JA (as he then was), had this to say in <i>Marange v Marange</i><b> </b><i>&amp; Others</i> SC 01/21:</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:84px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">“..section 283 of the Constitution does not constitute the actual code that governs the appointment and removal of chiefs or the resolution of disputes in that connection. What s283 does is to enunciate the template to be applied in the formation and implementation of that code……. As I have already stated, s 283 of the Constitution is not a substantive provision that impacts directly on the law governing the appointment and removal of traditional leaders. Rather, it declares what that law should provide in regulating, <i>inter alia</i>, the resolution of chieftainship disputes. Consequently, it cannot be construed, <i>per se</i>, as ousting the jurisdiction of the courts over such disputes.” </span></span></span></span></span></p> <ol start="18"><li style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">It appears from the above case that</span></span></span><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"> s 283 cannot be construed as a substantive provision. It merely allows the Legislature to craft a law that will operationalize the Constitutional provision. The Traditional Leaders Act which deals with such issues has not been amended following the coming into effect of the Constitution. It is however of note that para 10 of the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution provides that existing laws must be construed in conformity with the Constitution. </span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:47px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-left:47px; text-align:justify"> </p> <ol start="19"><li style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">It seems to me that, even if it is accepted that s 283 may be construed as a substantive provision, there is nothing in its wording that seems to indicate that it has retrospective application or that it ousts the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court.  The Traditional Leaders Act which is the legislation in force for the appointment and removal of Chiefs does not appear to oust the jurisdiction of the High Court in any way.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:47px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-left:47px; text-align:justify"> </p> <ol start="20"><li style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Section 283 was introduced in the Constitution and only came into operation in May 2013.This was after summons had been issued in this matter in 2010.</span></span></span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"> The principles applicable in order to determine the question of whether or not a statute is intended to operate retrospectively and take away accrued rights have been stated in numerous cases.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-left:38px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">In <i>Curtis v Johannesburg Municipality </i>1906 TS 308 at 311 INNES CJ said:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:76px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">“The general rule is that, in the absence of express provision to the contrary, statutes should be considered as affecting future matters only; and more especially that they should if possible be so interpreted as not to take away rights actually vested at the time of their promulgation.”</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:76px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-left:76px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-left:38px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">In <i>Bell</i> <i>v Voorsitter Van Die Rasklassifikasieraad En Andere</i> 1968(2) SA 678(A) which is in Afrikaans the head note states that:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:84px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">“It is clear that our law accepts the rule that, where a statutory provision is amended, retrospectively or otherwise, while a matter is pending, the rights of the parties to the action, in the absence of a contrary intention, must be decided in accordance with the statutory provisions in force at the time of the institution of the action.”</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:76px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-left:76px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-left:38px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">In <i>Agere v Nyambuya</i> 1985 (2) ZLR 336 (S) at 338 G – 339A GUBBAY JA (as he then was) stated the general rule as follows:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:84px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">“It is a fundamental rule of construction in our law, dating probably from Codex 1:14:7, that there is a strong presumption that retrospective operation is not to be given to an enactment so as to remove or in any way impair existing rights or obligations unless such a construction appears clearly from the language used or arises by necessary implication. For instance, where it is expressly retrospective, or deals with past events, or concerns a matter of procedure, practice or evidence.   The supposition is that the Legislature intends to deal only with future events and circumstances.”</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:76px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"> </p> <p style="margin-left:76px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-left:38px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Lastly, in <i>Nkomo and Anor v Attorney-General and Ors</i> 1993 (2) ZLR 422 (S) GUBBAY CJ at 429 C said:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:84px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">“Care must always be taken to ensure that retrospectivity is confined to the exact extent which the section of the Act provides.”</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:76px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-left:76px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-left:76px; text-align:justify"> </p> <ol start="21"><li style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">From the above authorities, it seems to me that, the guidance emanating from the jurisprudence of our courts is that, firstly, where the Legislature intends that a provision should have retrospective effect it states so in clear and unequivocal terms. (See also Craies on Statute Law (Seventh edition) p 388). Secondly, s 283 of the Constitution does not have retrospective application. There is nothing contained in s 283 of the Constitution or the Traditional Leaders Act that shows an intention to oust the jurisdiction of the High Court in determining disputes relating to the appointment and removal of traditional leaders that had already commenced before the effective date. </span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:47px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-left:47px; text-align:justify"> </p> <ol start="22"><li style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">As was stated in the <i>Marange case</i> (<i>supra</i>) Parliament is at large, subject to the Constitution, to curtail or oust the jurisdiction of any court. However, any such ouster must be effected in clear and unambiguous terms. In this case, even if s 283 of the Constitution were to be regarded as a substantive provision, I am unable to discern anything in its language that might be construed as meant to curtail or oust the jurisdiction of the High Court. </span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:47px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-left:47px; text-align:justify"> </p> <ol start="23"><li style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">There is also nothing contained in the Traditional Leaders Act, which might be taken as effecting any such ouster.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <ol start="24"><li style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">It should be noted that s 283 must be read in conjunction with para 18(9) of the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution which provides as follows:</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:84px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">“(9) All cases, other than pending constitutional cases, that were pending before any court before the effective date may be continued before that court or the equivalent court established by this Constitution, as the case may be, as if this Constitution had been in force when the cases were commenced, but:- </span></span></span></span></span></p> <ol style="list-style-type:lower-alpha"><li style="margin-left:82px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">the procedure to be followed in those cases must be the procedure that was applicable to them immediately before the effective date; and</span></span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:82px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">the procedure referred to in subparagraph (a) applies to those cases even if it is contrary to any provision of this Constitution.”</span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:144px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-left:144px; text-align:justify"> </p> <ol start="25"><li style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Paragraph 18 (9) of the Sixth Schedule is clearly a transitional provision dealing with procedure that affects cases which would have commenced before the effective date. It is a common law principle that a statute, dealing with procedure, applies retrospectively to govern all pending and future proceedings, unless it is provided otherwise. (See Craies on Statute Law <i>supra</i> at p 401-402).  Paragraph 18(9)(a) is such provision which provides contrary to the common law.  It thus alters the common law position.  Paragraph 18 (9)(a) of the sixth schedule allows a matter which has commenced before the effective date of the Constitution to continue in terms of the old procedure. Paragraph 18 (9)(b) leaves the matter in no doubt and expressly provides that even if the procedure is contrary to the new Constitution the old procedure should be followed.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-top:16px; margin-bottom:11px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">It should also be noted that para 18(10)(b) of the Sixth Schedule, places it beyond doubt that s 283 of the Constitution does not divest the High Court of its jurisdiction. It states that for the purposes of para 9 a civil case is deemed to have commenced when summons were issued or the application was filed before a court as the case may be. <i>In casu</i>, summons were issued in 2010 long before the Constitution came into operation. The provisions of s 283 (c)(iii) can only be interpreted as becoming operational relating to matters that arose after the commencement of the Constitution in 2013. For the above reasons the court<i> a quo</i> was correct in finding that it had jurisdiction to entertain the matter.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <ol start="27"><li style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">I was not persuaded by the appellant’s submission that s 283(c)(ii) of the Constitution has retrospective application and has the effect of ousting the jurisdiction of the High Court. I was also not persuaded by the appellant’s submission that the interpretation of s 283 of the Constitution which was given in the <i>Marange</i> case does not apply to the present facts. I take the view that the interpretation given to s 283 in the <i>Marange</i> case (<i>supra</i>) is of general application and is not just <span style="color:black">restricted </span>to reviews.  Whilst I accept that in the <i>Marange</i> case the court was dealing with a review in terms of s 26 of the High Court Act in my view this does not affect in any way the finding in the <i>Marange</i> case that s 283 does not have retrospective application nor does it oust the jurisdiction of the High Court.  It is clear from the facts that in the <i>Marange</i> judgment, the court was dealing with a matter that had commenced after the promulgation of the Constitution.  The court however still found that the jurisdiction of the High Court had not been ousted.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:48px"> </p> <p style="margin-left:47px; text-align:justify"> </p> <ol start="28"><li style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">It is also important to note that the High Court has original jurisdiction to deal with all civil and criminal matters. Section 171(1) (a) of the Constitution provides:</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:84px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">“171. Jurisdiction of High Court </span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">1. The High Court—</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:120px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">a. has original jurisdiction over all civil and criminal matters throughout </span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:120px; text-align:justify; text-indent:9.25pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Zimbabwe”</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:120px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-left:120px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-left:120px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">This section must be read together with s 13 of the High Court Act [<i>Chapter 7:06</i>] which reads as follows:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:113px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-21.25pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">“13.Original Civil Jurisdiction </span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:113px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Subject to this Act and any other law, the High Court shall have full original civil jurisdiction over all persons and over all matters within Zimbabwe.”</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:72px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-left:72px; text-align:justify"> </p> <ol start="29"><li style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The original jurisdiction of the High Court is unlimited, that is to say, it can hear and determine any civil dispute, whatever the nature of the claim. Since s 283 of the Constitution and the Traditional Leaders Act both do not expressly oust the jurisdiction of the High Court from determining traditional leadership disputes, it follows that it still maintains its unlimited original jurisdiction over such matters.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">DISPOSITION</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <ol start="30"><li style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The court <i>a quo</i> correctly found that it had the requisite jurisdiction to hear the matter. Section 283 (c) of the Constitution has vested the power to deal with disputes relating to chieftainship in the President as a domestic resolution mechanism. It is not a substantive provision as it requires operationalization through an Act of Parliament. The provision does not have retrospective application. It does not oust the inherent power of the High Court to determine such matters.  The matter commenced before the court <i>a quo </i>prior to the coming into force of the Constitution in 2013. It was therefore pending when the Constitution was promulgated.  That being the case, it must proceed in terms of para 18(9) of the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution.</span></span></span>      </span></span></span></li> <li style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The respondents have been successful and, as is the norm in respect of such a party, they are entitled to their costs.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:38px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-left:47px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:1.0cm"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">In the result it is ordered as follows:-</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <ol><li style="margin-left:56px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:3.0cm"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The appeal be and is hereby dismissed with costs.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:56px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:3.0cm"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">For the avoidance of doubt the matter is remitted to the court <i>a quo </i>for </span></span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:3.0cm"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">    continuation of trial in terms of the Rules of that Court.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-top:16px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:2.0cm"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">                   BHUNU JA:</span></span></span></b><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">                               I agree</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-top:16px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:2.0cm"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">                   KUDYA JA:</span></span></span></b><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">                               I agree  </span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-top:16px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"> </p> <p style="margin-top:16px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Kantor &amp; Immerman, </span></span></span></i><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">appellant’s legal practitioners</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-top:16px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Mushonga, Mutsvairo &amp; Associates</span></span></span></i><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">, 1<sup>st</sup> -6<sup>th</sup> respondents’ legal practitioners</span></span></span></span></span></span></p></span></div></div> </div> </div> Tue, 05 Apr 2022 07:11:34 +0000 Sandra Muengwa 12377 at http://zimlii.org Marowa v Mabaya & Sons Transport & General Contractors CC and 2 Others (5 of 2022) [2022] ZWMSVHC 5 (07 February 2022); http://zimlii.org/zw/judgment/masvingo-high-court/2022/5 <span class="field field--name-title field--type-string field--label-hidden">Marowa v Mabaya &amp; Sons Transport &amp; General Contractors CC and 2 Others (5 of 2022) [2022] ZWMSVHC 5 (07 February 2022);</span> <div class="field field--name-field-flynote field--type-entity-reference field--label-above"> <div class="field__label">Flynote</div> <div class='field__items'> <div class="field__item"><a href="/taxonomy/term/2324" hreflang="x-default">chamber application</a></div> <div class="field__item"><a href="/taxonomy/term/1566" hreflang="en">Jurisdiction</a></div> <div class="field__item"><a href="/taxonomy/term/1776" hreflang="en">Negligence</a></div> <div class="field__item"><a href="/taxonomy/term/2156" hreflang="x-default">Interpleader proceedings</a></div> </div> </div> <span class="field field--name-uid field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden"><span>Sandra Muengwa</span></span> <span class="field field--name-created field--type-created field--label-hidden">Mon, 02/14/2022 - 11:26</span> <div class="field field--name-field-files field--type-file field--label-above"> <div class="field__label">Download</div> <div class='field__items'> <div class="field__item"> <span class="file file--mime-application-vnd-openxmlformats-officedocument-wordprocessingml-document file--x-office-document"> <a href="https://media.zimlii.org/files/judgments/zwmsvhc/2022/5/2022-zwmsvhc-5.docx" type="application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document; length=28514">2022-zwmsvhc-5.docx</a></span> </div> <div class="field__item"> <span class="file file--mime-application-pdf file--application-pdf"> <a href="https://media.zimlii.org/files/judgments/zwmsvhc/2022/5/2022-zwmsvhc-5.pdf" type="application/pdf; length=520088">2022-zwmsvhc-5.pdf</a></span> </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-body field--type-text-with-summary field--label-hidden field__item"><p align="right" class="MsoHeader" style="text-align:right"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">HMA 05-22</span></span></p> <p> </p> <p align="right" class="MsoHeader" style="text-align:right"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">HC 330/21<sdtpr></sdtpr></span></span></p> <p> </p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">ERIC MAROWA</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">versus</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">MABAYA &amp; SONS TRANSPORT &amp; GENERAL CONTRACTORS CC<br /> and</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">ELVIS MABAYA</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">and<br /> SHERIFF OF THE HIGH COURT</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p> </p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE<br /> WAMAMBO J<br /> MASVINGO, 29 December 2021 and 7 February 2022</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p> </p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Chamber application – Attachment of property to found and confirm jurisdiction</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p> </p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">M Mureri, </span></span></span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">for the applicant<br /><i>Z.C Ncube, </i>for the 1<sup>st</sup> respondent</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">WAMAMBO J:   The applicant filed an urgent chamber application for attachment of property to confirm jurisdiction. I granted the order on 29 October 2021. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The first respondent has anticipated the return date and seeks that the provisional order granted on 29 October 2021 be discharged with costs on an attorney client scale.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The application for attachment of property to confirm jurisdiction is based on the following basis extracted from the founding affidavit of applicant.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The applicant is employed by MB Transport as a driver. On 20 November 2020 at the 220 kilometer peg along the Masvingo Beitbridge Road second respondent who was driving a Nissan UD Truck Reg No CGH 499L was involved in a road accident with the vehicle driven by applicant.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The accident was caused by the negligence of the second respondent who lost control of the vehicle he was driving and encroached to applicant’s lane.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Second respondent is being charged with negligent driving as per police report Annexure “A”.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The second respondent was at all times acting within the scope and course of his employment with the first respondent and that second respondent is vicariously liable.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The accident resulted in applicant sustaining various injuries namely a fracture of the left femur and multiple fractures of the left foot.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Annexure “B” drafted by an orthopedic surgeon reflects that injuries to applicant’s foot have left him with a permanent disability of 30 to 40% and that he will be unable to perform any significant manual labour.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Applicant intends to sue respondents for his medical bills, loss of amenities, future medical expenses, pain and suffering as well as loss of employment.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">His intended suit is for R1 500 000. Applicant also avers that the first and second respondents are based in South Africa who have trucks awaiting clearance within the Beitbridge Border Premises to South Africa. Full argument was head on 29 December 2021 and judgment was reserved.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The respondent raises a plethora of arguments to bolster its case.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Some of them are as follows:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The applicant has failed to satisfy the requirements of the order granted.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The applicant failed to show that he has a <i>prima facie</i> case for damages against first respondent.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The applicant has failed to clearly set out the cause of action.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">First respondent is neither the owner nor does it have any beneficial interest in the attached property. The provisional order does not say when the intended civil suit for damages will be instituted nor is such information provided in applicants founding affidavit.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Applicant also filed heads of argument which basically embrace the founding affidavits.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">He raised further argument as follows:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The respondents are not opposing this application. It is Rhudzani Mabaya representing Mabaya Trust who has effectively opposed the application by way of an interpleader.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The opposing papers filed amount to a purpoted Inter pleader which can only be launched in terms of R 63 of the Rules of Court.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The vehicles attached are branded as Mabaya and Sons Transport and General Contractors.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">First respondent and claimant are represented by the same legal practitioners thus raising fears of collusion.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">In <i>Memory Tembo</i> v <i>PCJ Motorways</i> HH 224/17 <span style="font-variant:small-caps">Dube J</span> had thus to say at p 2:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">“Hebstein and Van Winsen, The Civil Practise of the High Court of South Africa 5<sup>th</sup> ed at p94 define an attachment of property to found or confirm jurisdiction as follows:</span></span></span></i></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:13px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">An attachment to found or confirm jurisdiction is an attachment in South Africa of the property of peregrinus (a person who is domiciled and resident in a foreign country) in order to make that person amenable to the jurisdiction of a South African Court.<span style="font-variant:small-caps"> Beck J</span> in African Distillers v </span></span></span></i><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Zickiewicz and Others 1980 ZLR 135 at p 136 stated the following:</span></span></span></i></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-bottom:11px; margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">“</span></span></span><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-ZW">The well settled common law for which there is no dearth of judicial authority is that for claims that sound in money brought by an incola or a peregrinus against a peregrinus there must be arrest of the person of the defendant peregrinus or an attachment of his property within the territorial jurisdiction of the court in order to found jurisdiction or to confirm jurisdiction.  In those cases where some other jurisdictional ground exists in relation to the claim, as for example that it arises from a contract concluded or a delict committed within the court’s territorial limits of jurisdiction.  Such arrests of attachments are necessary in order to satisfy, albeit only partially</span> <span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-ZW">and imperfectly in some cases the doctrine of effectiveness, for the court will not concern itself with suits in which the resulting judgment will be no more from a <i>brutum fulmen</i>.”</span>  </span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-bottom:11px; text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The submission that service of the application was done inconsistent with the Rules can easily be disposed of.  By its very nature, an application to found jurisdiction can be made <i>ex parte</i>.  Although there seems to have been some attempt by the applicant to have the application served by on first respondent through courier, this application can well be made <i>exparte</i>.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-bottom:11px; text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">In <i>Memory</i> <i>Tembo</i> v <i>PCJ Motorways</i> (<i>supra</i>) the Learned Judge said at p 3:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-bottom:11px; margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">“</span></span><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-ZW">It is desirable to bring this type of application <i>exparte</i> without affording the respondent an opportunity to defend the application.  The basis for this application is that a respondent may if alerted decide to remove his property from the jurisdiction torpedoing the application.”</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-bottom:11px; text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The requirements to be satisfied in an order for attachment to found jurisdiction are as follows:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <ol style="list-style-type:lower-alpha"><li class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom:11px; margin-left:8px; text-align:justify"><span style="line-height:150%"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The cause of action has to have arisen in the applicant’s jurisdiction.</span></span></span></span></li> <li class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom:11px; margin-left:8px; text-align:justify"><span style="line-height:150%"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Applicant has a cause of action against the respondent.</span></span></span></span></li> <li class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom:11px; margin-left:8px; text-align:justify"><span style="line-height:150%"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The claim is sound in money</span></span></span></span></li> <li class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom:11px; margin-left:8px; text-align:justify"><span style="line-height:150%"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The property the subject of the attachment is within the jurisdiction and is capable of attachment.</span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-bottom:11px; text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">I am satisfied that the cause of action arose in the jurisdiction.  The Traffic Accident Report appearing on p 7 of the report speaks to that.  It reflects the first party as the applicant and the second party as the second respondent.  The date of accident is given as 20 November 2020 and it occurred at the 220 kilometre peg along the Masvingo-Beitbridge Road in Zimbabwe.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-bottom:11px; text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The cause of action itself arises from the traffic accident as aforesaid.  The second respondent according to the Traffic accident report is being charged of negligent driving.  The claim is for damages to the tune of R1 500 000.00.  The damages flow from the medical bills, loss of amenities, future medical expenses and suffering as well as loss of employment.  A report emanating from an Orthopaedic Surgeon is attached to the application.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-bottom:11px; text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The amount to be claimed may at first appear to be exaggerated.  However the point is that the basis for the claim has been established and is sound in money.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The respondent argues strongly that the owner of the attached property is wrongly cited.  It is argued that the first respondent is neither the owner nor does he have a beneficial interest in the property.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">This runs directly against the fact that the first respondent settled the claim pertaining to the applicant’s damaged truck by the respondents.  The second respondent thus has a beneficial interest in the property.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The first respondent’s founding affidavit is deposed to by one Kudzani Mabaya. He avers that he is a managing member of the first respondent.  He further avers that the property attached belong to Mabaya Trust a family Trust separate from the first respondent.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Kudzani Mabaya makes reference to new registration numbers. The second respondent should have produced registration books for the trucks and trailers with the registration numbers as given by applicant and proven that the trucks are not registered under first respondent but a different persona. In any case a registration book does not always denote that the vehicle belongs to the owner endorsed therein.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-bottom:11px; text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">It is noteworthy that Kudzani Mabaya filed an opposing affidavit, the only one filed on behalf of the first respondent.  This shows considerable interest in the affairs of the first respondent.  Among the other managing members, if any none other than Kudzani could file an opposing affidavit.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The first respondent is clearly not a fiction in the minds of applicant Annexure “G” was entered into by any other representatives of the first respondent.  Why didn’t, one or more of those representatives not depose to an opposing affidavit.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">I am satisfied in the circumstance that the first respondent has a beneficial interest in the trucks</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The first respondent avers that the applicant hoodwinked the court by averring in his application that the intended suit would be launched within seven days upon the granting of the interim order.  This was not done.  This averment is indeed correct.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Considering that the application was granted on 29 October 2021 and the application to discharge the order was launched on 14 December 2021 without the main claim being instituted, this effectively means the applicant intends to hold on to the interim attachment without launching the main application upon which the interim attachment is based.  If the applicant does not institute proceedings indefinitely it will also mean that the attachment of the second respondent’s vehicles will be indefinite.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-bottom:11px; text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Herbestein and Van Winsen, <i>The Civil Practice of the High Courts of South Africa,</i> 5<sup>th</sup> ed. points at page 124:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; margin-bottom:13px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">“The attachment order may stipulate that the attachment will lapse if the proposed action is not instituted within a certain period of time.”</span></span></i><i>  </i></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-indent:36.0pt; margin-bottom:13px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Section 15 of the High Court Act (<i>Chapter 7:06</i>) reads as follows</span></span>:</span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">“In any case in which the High Court may exercise jurisdiction founded on or confirmed by the arrest of any person or the attachments of any property the High Court may permit or direct the issue of process  within such period as the court may specify for same  either in or outside Zimbabwe without ordering such arrest or attachments, if the High Court is satisfied that the person or property concerned is within Zimbabwe and is capable of being arrested or attached, and the jurisdiction of the High Court in the matter shall be founded or confirmed as the case maybe by the issue of such process.”</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-indent:36.0pt"> </p> <p style="text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">In <i>Chenjerai Mawumba</i> &amp; <i>Two Others</i> v <i>Air Namibia Proprietary Ltd</i> HH 94-19 <span style="font-variant:small-caps">Chitapi</span> J  commented on the need to have a time limit endorsed on the attachment order on when the proposed action should be filed: at pp 6 thus:</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-bottom:11px; margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">“Another matter which has exercised my mind in writing these reasons for judgment is whether or not the order of attachment should not have placed the applicant on terms to file their proposed action within a given time frame from the date of my order. Section 15 of the High Court Act to the extent that it may address the point in relation to fixing a time frame by which the intended action or process against the<i> peregrine</i> must be issued appears to be permissive and not directory in relation to fixing a time frame by which the intended action or process against the <i>peregrine</i> must be instituted. I do not intend to dwell much on this issue save to express the view that it would appear to be desirable to fix a time bar by which the main case should be commenced. My view in favour of putting a time bar are informed by the fact that the attachment order is punitive in nature and affect fundamental freedoms before the Court has made a finding on liability. A serious applicant, intending to institute proceedings should do so without delay. It may be that such applicants be required to attain to the application for the attachment, a draft of the process intended to be issued against the defendant”</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">As pointed out earlier in this case although a time limit was expressed within  which the main matter would be instituted it was not only adhered to, but indeed up to the time of this hearing  there had been no filing of the matter in the main case . This is an issue which applicant should attend to with urgency if not already attended to.</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">The grounds for discharge of the writ are propounded in Hebstein and Van Winsen. The Civil Practise of the High Court of South Africa, 5<sup>th</sup> Edition at pp 123 thus:</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-bottom:11px; margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-bottom:11px; margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">“The defendant may apply for a discharge of the writ if a submission to the jurisdiction of the count was made before the attachment was executed or on the ground that one or more of the essential factors which should have been present in the first place to entitle the plaintiff to the issue of a writ are absent. The defendant might be able to show that the plaintiff has no <i>prima facie </i>case or, that the property attached is not in fact his or hers. The <i>onus</i> of proving that the property sought to be attached is that of the <i>peregrinus</i> lies on the applicant for attachment even when the attachment has been made <i>ex parte</i> and the peregrinus applies to have the attachment set aside.”</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">The applicant in this matter has discharged the onus of proof to the effect that the property belongs to first respondents.</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">In fact the applicant has managed to prove that the property attached belongs to first respondent through the first respondent itself. In first respondents’ notice of opposition an order by consent is attached, </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">thereto as Annexure “G” Annexure “G” clearly reflects the first respondents as the same in this matter. It is noteworthy that the names of first respondent had to be amended to reflect the correct names. Paragraph 5 of annexure “G” reflects that first respondent in that matter (who are the same respondents in this matter) undertook to pay agreed damages representing the repair cost into applicant’s nominated bank account.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">First respondent is the very party who ostensibly is to be sued in this matter for medical bills and allied damages resulting from the very same accident the subject of Annexure “G”.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">To that end and for the reasons given above I find that there are proper reasons for the confirmation of the order as opposed to its discharge. </span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">The order as couched is not as clear as it should. The ground to grant an efficacious order I will amend it to the extent that it does not only make sense but makes it practical and effective. Further I will add a separate paragraph putting applicant on terms to file his claim if he has not already done so.</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US"> I hereby order as follows:</span></span></span></span></p> <ol><li class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:56px; text-align:justify"><span style="line-height:150%"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The first respondent’s white Volvo Truck Registration no DPP321L with a side tipper trailer and a white Volvo Truck Registration No DJZ713L with boards trailer FJK 588L that are within Zimbabwe be and are held by the Sheriff of this Honourable Court until the finalization of the matter to be instituted by the applicant for damages arising out of a traffic accident that occurred on 20 November 2020 along Masvingo Beitbridge Road between the applicant’s vehicle registration no ABQ 562S and vehicle Registration no CGH 499L</span></span></span></span></li> <li class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:56px; text-align:justify"><span style="line-height:150%"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The applicant shall file his claim within ten days of the date of this order, failing  which this order shall lapse</span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">Matutu &amp; Mureri, </span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">applicant’s legal practitioner</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">Ncube &amp; Partners</span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">, respondent’s legal practitioner</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-bottom:11px; margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"> </span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-bottom:11px; text-align:justify; text-indent:18.0pt"> </p> <p style="margin-bottom:11px; text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"> </span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> </div> <div class="views-element-container"><div class="view view-eva view-download-conditional view-id-download_conditional view-display-id-entity_view_1 js-view-dom-id-a9321aed953a18c995f2d3e44bd3624572743d0081358f3ff1cbc590ac2578e0"> <div><div class="views-field views-field-views-conditional-field"><span class="field-content"><p align="right" class="MsoHeader" style="text-align:right"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">HMA 05-22</span></span></p> <p> </p> <p align="right" class="MsoHeader" style="text-align:right"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">HC 330/21<sdtpr></sdtpr></span></span></p> <p> </p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">ERIC MAROWA</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">versus</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">MABAYA &amp; SONS TRANSPORT &amp; GENERAL CONTRACTORS CC<br /> and</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">ELVIS MABAYA</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">and<br /> SHERIFF OF THE HIGH COURT</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p> </p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE<br /> WAMAMBO J<br /> MASVINGO, 29 December 2021 and 7 February 2022</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p> </p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Chamber application – Attachment of property to found and confirm jurisdiction</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p> </p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">M Mureri, </span></span></span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">for the applicant<br /><i>Z.C Ncube, </i>for the 1<sup>st</sup> respondent</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">WAMAMBO J:   The applicant filed an urgent chamber application for attachment of property to confirm jurisdiction. I granted the order on 29 October 2021. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The first respondent has anticipated the return date and seeks that the provisional order granted on 29 October 2021 be discharged with costs on an attorney client scale.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The application for attachment of property to confirm jurisdiction is based on the following basis extracted from the founding affidavit of applicant.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The applicant is employed by MB Transport as a driver. On 20 November 2020 at the 220 kilometer peg along the Masvingo Beitbridge Road second respondent who was driving a Nissan UD Truck Reg No CGH 499L was involved in a road accident with the vehicle driven by applicant.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The accident was caused by the negligence of the second respondent who lost control of the vehicle he was driving and encroached to applicant’s lane.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Second respondent is being charged with negligent driving as per police report Annexure “A”.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The second respondent was at all times acting within the scope and course of his employment with the first respondent and that second respondent is vicariously liable.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The accident resulted in applicant sustaining various injuries namely a fracture of the left femur and multiple fractures of the left foot.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Annexure “B” drafted by an orthopedic surgeon reflects that injuries to applicant’s foot have left him with a permanent disability of 30 to 40% and that he will be unable to perform any significant manual labour.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Applicant intends to sue respondents for his medical bills, loss of amenities, future medical expenses, pain and suffering as well as loss of employment.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">His intended suit is for R1 500 000. Applicant also avers that the first and second respondents are based in South Africa who have trucks awaiting clearance within the Beitbridge Border Premises to South Africa. Full argument was head on 29 December 2021 and judgment was reserved.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The respondent raises a plethora of arguments to bolster its case.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Some of them are as follows:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The applicant has failed to satisfy the requirements of the order granted.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The applicant failed to show that he has a <i>prima facie</i> case for damages against first respondent.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The applicant has failed to clearly set out the cause of action.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">First respondent is neither the owner nor does it have any beneficial interest in the attached property. The provisional order does not say when the intended civil suit for damages will be instituted nor is such information provided in applicants founding affidavit.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Applicant also filed heads of argument which basically embrace the founding affidavits.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">He raised further argument as follows:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The respondents are not opposing this application. It is Rhudzani Mabaya representing Mabaya Trust who has effectively opposed the application by way of an interpleader.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The opposing papers filed amount to a purpoted Inter pleader which can only be launched in terms of R 63 of the Rules of Court.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The vehicles attached are branded as Mabaya and Sons Transport and General Contractors.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">First respondent and claimant are represented by the same legal practitioners thus raising fears of collusion.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">In <i>Memory Tembo</i> v <i>PCJ Motorways</i> HH 224/17 <span style="font-variant:small-caps">Dube J</span> had thus to say at p 2:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">“Hebstein and Van Winsen, The Civil Practise of the High Court of South Africa 5<sup>th</sup> ed at p94 define an attachment of property to found or confirm jurisdiction as follows:</span></span></span></i></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:13px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">An attachment to found or confirm jurisdiction is an attachment in South Africa of the property of peregrinus (a person who is domiciled and resident in a foreign country) in order to make that person amenable to the jurisdiction of a South African Court.<span style="font-variant:small-caps"> Beck J</span> in African Distillers v </span></span></span></i><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Zickiewicz and Others 1980 ZLR 135 at p 136 stated the following:</span></span></span></i></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-bottom:11px; margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">“</span></span></span><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-ZW">The well settled common law for which there is no dearth of judicial authority is that for claims that sound in money brought by an incola or a peregrinus against a peregrinus there must be arrest of the person of the defendant peregrinus or an attachment of his property within the territorial jurisdiction of the court in order to found jurisdiction or to confirm jurisdiction.  In those cases where some other jurisdictional ground exists in relation to the claim, as for example that it arises from a contract concluded or a delict committed within the court’s territorial limits of jurisdiction.  Such arrests of attachments are necessary in order to satisfy, albeit only partially</span> <span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-ZW">and imperfectly in some cases the doctrine of effectiveness, for the court will not concern itself with suits in which the resulting judgment will be no more from a <i>brutum fulmen</i>.”</span>  </span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-bottom:11px; text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The submission that service of the application was done inconsistent with the Rules can easily be disposed of.  By its very nature, an application to found jurisdiction can be made <i>ex parte</i>.  Although there seems to have been some attempt by the applicant to have the application served by on first respondent through courier, this application can well be made <i>exparte</i>.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-bottom:11px; text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">In <i>Memory</i> <i>Tembo</i> v <i>PCJ Motorways</i> (<i>supra</i>) the Learned Judge said at p 3:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-bottom:11px; margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">“</span></span><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-ZW">It is desirable to bring this type of application <i>exparte</i> without affording the respondent an opportunity to defend the application.  The basis for this application is that a respondent may if alerted decide to remove his property from the jurisdiction torpedoing the application.”</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-bottom:11px; text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The requirements to be satisfied in an order for attachment to found jurisdiction are as follows:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <ol style="list-style-type:lower-alpha"><li class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom:11px; margin-left:8px; text-align:justify"><span style="line-height:150%"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The cause of action has to have arisen in the applicant’s jurisdiction.</span></span></span></span></li> <li class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom:11px; margin-left:8px; text-align:justify"><span style="line-height:150%"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Applicant has a cause of action against the respondent.</span></span></span></span></li> <li class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom:11px; margin-left:8px; text-align:justify"><span style="line-height:150%"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The claim is sound in money</span></span></span></span></li> <li class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom:11px; margin-left:8px; text-align:justify"><span style="line-height:150%"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The property the subject of the attachment is within the jurisdiction and is capable of attachment.</span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-bottom:11px; text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">I am satisfied that the cause of action arose in the jurisdiction.  The Traffic Accident Report appearing on p 7 of the report speaks to that.  It reflects the first party as the applicant and the second party as the second respondent.  The date of accident is given as 20 November 2020 and it occurred at the 220 kilometre peg along the Masvingo-Beitbridge Road in Zimbabwe.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-bottom:11px; text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The cause of action itself arises from the traffic accident as aforesaid.  The second respondent according to the Traffic accident report is being charged of negligent driving.  The claim is for damages to the tune of R1 500 000.00.  The damages flow from the medical bills, loss of amenities, future medical expenses and suffering as well as loss of employment.  A report emanating from an Orthopaedic Surgeon is attached to the application.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-bottom:11px; text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The amount to be claimed may at first appear to be exaggerated.  However the point is that the basis for the claim has been established and is sound in money.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The respondent argues strongly that the owner of the attached property is wrongly cited.  It is argued that the first respondent is neither the owner nor does he have a beneficial interest in the property.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">This runs directly against the fact that the first respondent settled the claim pertaining to the applicant’s damaged truck by the respondents.  The second respondent thus has a beneficial interest in the property.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The first respondent’s founding affidavit is deposed to by one Kudzani Mabaya. He avers that he is a managing member of the first respondent.  He further avers that the property attached belong to Mabaya Trust a family Trust separate from the first respondent.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Kudzani Mabaya makes reference to new registration numbers. The second respondent should have produced registration books for the trucks and trailers with the registration numbers as given by applicant and proven that the trucks are not registered under first respondent but a different persona. In any case a registration book does not always denote that the vehicle belongs to the owner endorsed therein.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-bottom:11px; text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">It is noteworthy that Kudzani Mabaya filed an opposing affidavit, the only one filed on behalf of the first respondent.  This shows considerable interest in the affairs of the first respondent.  Among the other managing members, if any none other than Kudzani could file an opposing affidavit.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The first respondent is clearly not a fiction in the minds of applicant Annexure “G” was entered into by any other representatives of the first respondent.  Why didn’t, one or more of those representatives not depose to an opposing affidavit.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">I am satisfied in the circumstance that the first respondent has a beneficial interest in the trucks</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The first respondent avers that the applicant hoodwinked the court by averring in his application that the intended suit would be launched within seven days upon the granting of the interim order.  This was not done.  This averment is indeed correct.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Considering that the application was granted on 29 October 2021 and the application to discharge the order was launched on 14 December 2021 without the main claim being instituted, this effectively means the applicant intends to hold on to the interim attachment without launching the main application upon which the interim attachment is based.  If the applicant does not institute proceedings indefinitely it will also mean that the attachment of the second respondent’s vehicles will be indefinite.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-bottom:11px; text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Herbestein and Van Winsen, <i>The Civil Practice of the High Courts of South Africa,</i> 5<sup>th</sup> ed. points at page 124:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; margin-bottom:13px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">“The attachment order may stipulate that the attachment will lapse if the proposed action is not instituted within a certain period of time.”</span></span></i><i>  </i></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-indent:36.0pt; margin-bottom:13px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Section 15 of the High Court Act (<i>Chapter 7:06</i>) reads as follows</span></span>:</span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">“In any case in which the High Court may exercise jurisdiction founded on or confirmed by the arrest of any person or the attachments of any property the High Court may permit or direct the issue of process  within such period as the court may specify for same  either in or outside Zimbabwe without ordering such arrest or attachments, if the High Court is satisfied that the person or property concerned is within Zimbabwe and is capable of being arrested or attached, and the jurisdiction of the High Court in the matter shall be founded or confirmed as the case maybe by the issue of such process.”</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-indent:36.0pt"> </p> <p style="text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">In <i>Chenjerai Mawumba</i> &amp; <i>Two Others</i> v <i>Air Namibia Proprietary Ltd</i> HH 94-19 <span style="font-variant:small-caps">Chitapi</span> J  commented on the need to have a time limit endorsed on the attachment order on when the proposed action should be filed: at pp 6 thus:</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-bottom:11px; margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">“Another matter which has exercised my mind in writing these reasons for judgment is whether or not the order of attachment should not have placed the applicant on terms to file their proposed action within a given time frame from the date of my order. Section 15 of the High Court Act to the extent that it may address the point in relation to fixing a time frame by which the intended action or process against the<i> peregrine</i> must be issued appears to be permissive and not directory in relation to fixing a time frame by which the intended action or process against the <i>peregrine</i> must be instituted. I do not intend to dwell much on this issue save to express the view that it would appear to be desirable to fix a time bar by which the main case should be commenced. My view in favour of putting a time bar are informed by the fact that the attachment order is punitive in nature and affect fundamental freedoms before the Court has made a finding on liability. A serious applicant, intending to institute proceedings should do so without delay. It may be that such applicants be required to attain to the application for the attachment, a draft of the process intended to be issued against the defendant”</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">As pointed out earlier in this case although a time limit was expressed within  which the main matter would be instituted it was not only adhered to, but indeed up to the time of this hearing  there had been no filing of the matter in the main case . This is an issue which applicant should attend to with urgency if not already attended to.</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">The grounds for discharge of the writ are propounded in Hebstein and Van Winsen. The Civil Practise of the High Court of South Africa, 5<sup>th</sup> Edition at pp 123 thus:</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-bottom:11px; margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-bottom:11px; margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">“The defendant may apply for a discharge of the writ if a submission to the jurisdiction of the count was made before the attachment was executed or on the ground that one or more of the essential factors which should have been present in the first place to entitle the plaintiff to the issue of a writ are absent. The defendant might be able to show that the plaintiff has no <i>prima facie </i>case or, that the property attached is not in fact his or hers. The <i>onus</i> of proving that the property sought to be attached is that of the <i>peregrinus</i> lies on the applicant for attachment even when the attachment has been made <i>ex parte</i> and the peregrinus applies to have the attachment set aside.”</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">The applicant in this matter has discharged the onus of proof to the effect that the property belongs to first respondents.</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">In fact the applicant has managed to prove that the property attached belongs to first respondent through the first respondent itself. In first respondents’ notice of opposition an order by consent is attached, </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">thereto as Annexure “G” Annexure “G” clearly reflects the first respondents as the same in this matter. It is noteworthy that the names of first respondent had to be amended to reflect the correct names. Paragraph 5 of annexure “G” reflects that first respondent in that matter (who are the same respondents in this matter) undertook to pay agreed damages representing the repair cost into applicant’s nominated bank account.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">First respondent is the very party who ostensibly is to be sued in this matter for medical bills and allied damages resulting from the very same accident the subject of Annexure “G”.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">To that end and for the reasons given above I find that there are proper reasons for the confirmation of the order as opposed to its discharge. </span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">The order as couched is not as clear as it should. The ground to grant an efficacious order I will amend it to the extent that it does not only make sense but makes it practical and effective. Further I will add a separate paragraph putting applicant on terms to file his claim if he has not already done so.</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US"> I hereby order as follows:</span></span></span></span></p> <ol><li class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:56px; text-align:justify"><span style="line-height:150%"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The first respondent’s white Volvo Truck Registration no DPP321L with a side tipper trailer and a white Volvo Truck Registration No DJZ713L with boards trailer FJK 588L that are within Zimbabwe be and are held by the Sheriff of this Honourable Court until the finalization of the matter to be instituted by the applicant for damages arising out of a traffic accident that occurred on 20 November 2020 along Masvingo Beitbridge Road between the applicant’s vehicle registration no ABQ 562S and vehicle Registration no CGH 499L</span></span></span></span></li> <li class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:56px; text-align:justify"><span style="line-height:150%"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The applicant shall file his claim within ten days of the date of this order, failing  which this order shall lapse</span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">Matutu &amp; Mureri, </span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">applicant’s legal practitioner</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">Ncube &amp; Partners</span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">, respondent’s legal practitioner</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-bottom:11px; margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"> </span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-bottom:11px; text-align:justify; text-indent:18.0pt"> </p> <p style="margin-bottom:11px; text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"> </span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p></span></div></div> </div> </div> Mon, 14 Feb 2022 11:26:34 +0000 Sandra Muengwa 12305 at http://zimlii.org EMA and Another v Angel Hill Mining Company (Pvt) Limited and 2 Others (706 of 2021) [2021] ZWHHC 706 (15 December 2021); http://zimlii.org/zw/judgment/harare-high-court/2021/706 <span class="field field--name-title field--type-string field--label-hidden">EMA and Another v Angel Hill Mining Company (Pvt) Limited and 2 Others (706 of 2021) [2021] ZWHHC 706 (15 December 2021);</span> <div class="field field--name-field-flynote field--type-entity-reference field--label-above"> <div class="field__label">Flynote</div> <div class='field__items'> <div class="field__item"><a href="/taxonomy/term/1566" hreflang="en">Jurisdiction</a></div> <div class="field__item"><a href="/taxonomy/term/2206" hreflang="x-default">condonation of non-observance of any time limit</a></div> <div class="field__item"><a href="/taxonomy/term/2275" hreflang="x-default">rescission (Default judgment)</a></div> </div> </div> <span class="field field--name-uid field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden"><span>Sandra Muengwa</span></span> <span class="field field--name-created field--type-created field--label-hidden">Mon, 01/10/2022 - 10:19</span> <div class="field field--name-field-files field--type-file field--label-above"> <div class="field__label">Download</div> <div class='field__items'> <div class="field__item"> <span class="file file--mime-application-vnd-openxmlformats-officedocument-wordprocessingml-document file--x-office-document"> <a href="https://media.zimlii.org/files/judgments/zwhhc/2021/706/2021-zwhhc-706.docx" type="application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document; length=23665">2021-zwhhc-706.docx</a></span> </div> <div class="field__item"> <span class="file file--mime-application-pdf file--application-pdf"> <a href="https://media.zimlii.org/files/judgments/zwhhc/2021/706/2021-zwhhc-706.pdf" type="application/pdf; length=328828">2021-zwhhc-706.pdf</a></span> </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-body field--type-text-with-summary field--label-hidden field__item"><p align="right" style="text-align:right"> </p> <p class="text-align-right">HH 706-21</p> <p class="text-align-right">HC 2090/21</p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">and</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">DIRECTOR GENERAL, ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY  </span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">versus</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">ANGEL HILL MINING COMPANY (PVT) LIMITED</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">and </span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENT, TOURISM &amp; HOSPITALITY</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">INDUSTRY N.O</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">and </span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">MANYAME CATCHMENT COUNCIL</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">MUZOFA J</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">HARARE, 12, 22 November &amp; 15 December 2021</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Opposed Application</span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">T J Chivanga.</span></span></i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">, for the applicant</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Muguwe,</span></span></i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"> for the 1<sup>st</sup> respondent</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">C Chitekuteku</span></span></i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">, for the 2<sup>nd</sup> respondent</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">                        <span style="font-variant:small-caps">MUZOFA J</span>:  This is a combined application for condonation of late noting of an application for rescission of default judgment and an application for rescission of default judgment.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The first applicant is a statutory body established under the Environmental Agency Act [<i>Chapter 20:27</i>]. The second applicant is a director in the first applicant. The first respondent is a company registered in terms of the laws of Zimbabwe. The second respondent is the Minister responsible for the tourism and hospitality industry. The third respondent is a body corporate established in terms of s 24 of the Water Act [<i>Chapter 20:25</i>]</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The dispute is primarily between the first applicant and the first respondent in respect of the first respondent’s authority to conduct alluvial mining along Angwa River. The first respondent obtained a Provisional Order against the applicants. When the matter was set down for confirmation the applicants were in default. The Provisional Order was confirmed under HC 2989/19 on 29 May 2019.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The terms of the order were as follows:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <ol><li style="margin-left:56px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The provisional order that was granted by the Honourable Court on 12 April 2019 be and is hereby confirmed.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:56px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The decision by the first, second, third and fourth respondents of refusing to issue a Sand Extraction Permit and all necessary documents that may be required for the applicant to start its alluvial mining along Angwa River be and is hereby set aside.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:56px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The first, second, third and fourth respondents be and are hereby interdicted from declaring the sand extraction permit that was issued by the fourth respondent on the 15 March 2019 null and void.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:56px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The first ,second, third and fourth respondents be and are hereby ordered to issue to the applicant a Sand Extraction Permit and all necessary documents that may be required for the applicant to start is alluvial mining along Angwa river within 48 hours of granting of this order.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:56px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">In the event of failure by the first second, third, and fourth respondents to comply, this order shall take the place of the Sand Extraction Permit and all other necessary documents required for the applicant to start its alluvial mining along Angwa River.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:56px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The first to fourth respondents shall pay costs of suit on an attorney and client scale.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The applicant averred that it issued a sand extraction permit with special conditions to the first respondent on 23 April 2019. The permit was to expire on 30 September 2019.In January 2021 the first respondent started preparations for alluvial mining along Angwa River. The applicant issued an environmental stop order to stop the first respondent from mining. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The first respondent approached the court again on an urgent basis under HC 577/21 for the suspension of the environmental stop order. This time the application was opposed by the applicants. Despite opposition the Provisional Order was granted it is yet to be heard for confirmation .The effect of the order was to suspend the environmental stop order issued by the applicants and the fine levied against the first respondent. The court ordered the continuation of the mining activities. When the first respondent waved the court order under HC2989/19 as its authority to mine, it dawned on the applicants that the first respondent could continue mining in perpetuity without restraint based on the court order. Thus the applicants filed the two applications to have the default order set aside.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The applicants bring a dual application. The justification of such an application is set out as for convenience instead of making two applications one application would save both the court and the litigants’ time and resources. The other reason is said to be to achieve justice between the parties without undue delays.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">In respect of the application for condonation. The applicants concede that the application was made after a long period of about two years. The reason for the delay is that the applicant’s might have misinterpreted the court order thereby failing to fully appreciate the full extent of its meaning. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">As for the application for rescission of judgment, the applicants urged this court to find the explanation for the default reasonable and that the matter enjoys good prospects of success. I will revert to the detailed accounts of the explanation in due course if it becomes necessary.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The first respondent opposed the applications and took a preliminary point that a dual application is not provided for in the rules. It is incompetent and must be struck off. Secondly that the deponent to the applicants’ founding affidavit lacks authority. On the merit the court was urged to dismiss the applications as there is no reasonable application for the delay and the extent of the delay is long. Also that the applicants have no prospects of success in the main matter.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">I shall address the issue on the dual application first. Both parties are agreed that there is no rule that provides for such an application. The respondent relied on the case of <i>Bramwell Bushu </i>v<i> GMB</i> HH326/17 where the court made the point that although there is no provision that an application must state in terms of which law it is made, it is desirable for astute legal practitioners to do so. I find the case irrelevant in the resolution of this issue. The case did not deal with dual applications. If there is any relevance it is that failure to state the rule of law in terms of which an application is made does not non suit a party.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The applicants relied on the case of <i>Tenke Fungurume Mining SA </i>v<i> Bruno Enterprises (Pvt) Ltd</i> HH 478/19 where the court allowed a dual application. I agree with the reasoning in the <i>Tenke </i>case. This court is a court of inherent jurisdiction. It is imbued with power to control its processes in the interests of justice. Therefore what is not prohibited and advances the interests of justice can be done by this court. It is also trite that rules are made for the court, they are a tool for use to achieve order in the hearing of cases. What the court has to consider is whether hearing dual application is not prejudicial to either party. In this case having the matters heard simultaneously is more convenient for both parties and the court and in turn ensuring the two matters are resolved expeditiously. The applicants’ justification for the dual application is persuasive. In the absence of any prejudice to either party, I find no reason not to hear the application. The preliminary point is dismissed.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The second point taken is that the deponent to the applicants’ founding affidavit has no authority. It is trite that a corporate body speaks through a board resolution. Where the authority of a deponent to such a company is challenged the Board resolution must be produced. It can be produced anytime during the proceedings. See generally </span></span></span><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Tapson Madzivire &amp; Ors </span></span></span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">v <i>Misheck Brian Zvarivadza &amp;</i> <i>Ors</i> SC 10/2006.</span></span></span><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">, </span></span></span><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">CE Dube </span></span></span></i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">v<i> PSMAS</i> SC73/19</span></span></span><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">In this case the authority was not attached to the application. It was handed over the bar by the applicant’s counsel. I find the authority valid although it was inelegantly prepared. That disposes of the point taken. The deponent was authorised to represent the applicants. The point taken is dismissed.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Condonation.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Condonation for the non-observance of the court’s rules is an indulgence granted at the discretion of the Court. This discretion is exercised judiciously upon a consideration of such factors as the extent of the delay and the reasonableness of explanation thereof, the prospects of success, the interest of justice and the interest of the parties in the finality of litigation. See generally <i>Friendship </i>v<i> Cargo Carriers Ltd &amp; Anor</i> 2013 (1) ZLR 1 (S).Where the extent of delay is long the court can decline condonation despite the prospects of success. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">This application was made almost two years after the default order was granted. The period of delay is long. The applicants became aware of the order immediately after it was granted. They decided to live with it. In their terms, they even partially complied with the order although this was disputed by the respondent. The applicants’ explanation for not seeking rescission in terms of the rules is that they misinterpreted the court order under HC2989/19. According to the applicant it understood the order to require them to issue a sand extraction permit which it did issue. The permit expired in September 2019.Secondly they did not understand the order to grant the first respondent an unbridled right to commence alluvial mining without complying with all the statutory requirements. In March 2021 the applicant discovered that the first respondent was conducting alluvial mining without an Environmental Impact Assessment Certificate. The first respondent approached the court and an order was granted based on the default order.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The explanation is unreasonable. The order by <span style="font-variant:small-caps">JUSTICE ZHOU</span> is very clear. It required the applicant to issue a Sand Extraction permit and all documents necessary for the first respondent to start its alluvial mining along Angwa River. The applicant chose not to comply with the order. The applicant selectively appreciated the issue in respect of the Sand Extraction permit only. It remained mum on the alluvial mining yet this is the very issue that has caused its problems. Even in its founding affidavit there is no explanation why it did not issue the necessary documents for alluvial mining to the first respondent. Since the applicant opted not to comply with the order, the order became the required permit and documents for the commencement of alluvial mining. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">In my view the issue is not the court order. The court order granted the first respondent the right to start its mining activities. This was in May 2019. All the necessary documents required for such mining were subsumed in the court order including the EIA at the commencement of the mining. The applicant cannot cry foul after two years. In terms of s 101 of the Environmental Management Act [<i>Chapter 20:27</i>] an EIA is valid for two years. Within the two years from the date of the default order the first respondent’s mining activities were validated by the court order. The applicant acted prematurely and the first respondent rightfully waived the court order to justify its operations when the environmental stop order was issued.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The basis of the complaint is baseless. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The applicant cannot plead for indulgence after two years when it made a conscious decision not to oppose the application. Even after the granting of the order, it consciously chose not to comply with the order. Had it complied with the order it would have had the opportunity to make sure the first respondent properly complied with the statutory requirements. The first applicant is reposed with the duty to superintendent over issues that affect the environment. A laid back approach as is evident <i>in casu i</i>s unacceptable. The applicant literally neglected its duties and only to come to court expecting some soft landing. It is not possible. The applicant cannot raise the issue of the importance of an EIA at this stage when, on being served with the application it did not appreciate the importance. Secondly when the default order was granted it did not appreciate its importance. Only to appreciate it when the first respondent had commenced its operations. Courts should not be seen to condone such an approach.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The applicants were in wilful default and the explanation for the delay in filing the application is unreasonable.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">I have already touched on the prospects of success in dealing with the explanation for the delay. There are no prospects of success in the main matter.   </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">There must be finality to litigation. The order was granted two years ago .The first respondent has arranged its business in terms of the court order. It is not in the interest of justice that such a matter be re visited. The applicant’s recourse as the superintendent of all such projects can only apply at the lapse of two years from the date of the court order.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The application for condonation is therefore dismissed. Since the applicant has not been condoned. The application for rescission of judgment cannot be considered. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">My finding then raise the issue on the form of order that should be granted. In my view the application for rescission of judgment cannot be dismissed since it has not been decided on the merits. It remains as an application placed before the court before condonation was granted. It is improperly before the court. The proper order then is to remove it from the roll.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">In the result, the following order is made.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <ol><li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The application for condonation for the late filing of an application for rescission of judgment be and is hereby dismissed with costs.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The application for rescission of a default judgment is removed from the roll.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Dube, Manikai &amp; Hwacha</span></span></span></i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">, applicants’ legal practitioners</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Zimudzi &amp; Associates</span></span></span></i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">, 1<sup>st</sup> respondent’s legal practitioners</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> </div> <div class="views-element-container"><div class="view view-eva view-download-conditional view-id-download_conditional view-display-id-entity_view_1 js-view-dom-id-beb4756754cb17c738c8b4aecb07b8735a038d64281c095fde2e93fba4c20f73"> <div><div class="views-field views-field-views-conditional-field"><span class="field-content"><p align="right" style="text-align:right"> </p> <p class="text-align-right">HH 706-21</p> <p class="text-align-right">HC 2090/21</p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">and</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">DIRECTOR GENERAL, ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY  </span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">versus</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">ANGEL HILL MINING COMPANY (PVT) LIMITED</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">and </span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENT, TOURISM &amp; HOSPITALITY</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">INDUSTRY N.O</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">and </span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">MANYAME CATCHMENT COUNCIL</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">MUZOFA J</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">HARARE, 12, 22 November &amp; 15 December 2021</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Opposed Application</span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">T J Chivanga.</span></span></i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">, for the applicant</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Muguwe,</span></span></i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"> for the 1<sup>st</sup> respondent</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">C Chitekuteku</span></span></i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">, for the 2<sup>nd</sup> respondent</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">                        <span style="font-variant:small-caps">MUZOFA J</span>:  This is a combined application for condonation of late noting of an application for rescission of default judgment and an application for rescission of default judgment.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The first applicant is a statutory body established under the Environmental Agency Act [<i>Chapter 20:27</i>]. The second applicant is a director in the first applicant. The first respondent is a company registered in terms of the laws of Zimbabwe. The second respondent is the Minister responsible for the tourism and hospitality industry. The third respondent is a body corporate established in terms of s 24 of the Water Act [<i>Chapter 20:25</i>]</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The dispute is primarily between the first applicant and the first respondent in respect of the first respondent’s authority to conduct alluvial mining along Angwa River. The first respondent obtained a Provisional Order against the applicants. When the matter was set down for confirmation the applicants were in default. The Provisional Order was confirmed under HC 2989/19 on 29 May 2019.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The terms of the order were as follows:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <ol><li style="margin-left:56px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The provisional order that was granted by the Honourable Court on 12 April 2019 be and is hereby confirmed.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:56px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The decision by the first, second, third and fourth respondents of refusing to issue a Sand Extraction Permit and all necessary documents that may be required for the applicant to start its alluvial mining along Angwa River be and is hereby set aside.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:56px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The first, second, third and fourth respondents be and are hereby interdicted from declaring the sand extraction permit that was issued by the fourth respondent on the 15 March 2019 null and void.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:56px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The first ,second, third and fourth respondents be and are hereby ordered to issue to the applicant a Sand Extraction Permit and all necessary documents that may be required for the applicant to start is alluvial mining along Angwa river within 48 hours of granting of this order.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:56px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">In the event of failure by the first second, third, and fourth respondents to comply, this order shall take the place of the Sand Extraction Permit and all other necessary documents required for the applicant to start its alluvial mining along Angwa River.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:56px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The first to fourth respondents shall pay costs of suit on an attorney and client scale.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The applicant averred that it issued a sand extraction permit with special conditions to the first respondent on 23 April 2019. The permit was to expire on 30 September 2019.In January 2021 the first respondent started preparations for alluvial mining along Angwa River. The applicant issued an environmental stop order to stop the first respondent from mining. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The first respondent approached the court again on an urgent basis under HC 577/21 for the suspension of the environmental stop order. This time the application was opposed by the applicants. Despite opposition the Provisional Order was granted it is yet to be heard for confirmation .The effect of the order was to suspend the environmental stop order issued by the applicants and the fine levied against the first respondent. The court ordered the continuation of the mining activities. When the first respondent waved the court order under HC2989/19 as its authority to mine, it dawned on the applicants that the first respondent could continue mining in perpetuity without restraint based on the court order. Thus the applicants filed the two applications to have the default order set aside.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The applicants bring a dual application. The justification of such an application is set out as for convenience instead of making two applications one application would save both the court and the litigants’ time and resources. The other reason is said to be to achieve justice between the parties without undue delays.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">In respect of the application for condonation. The applicants concede that the application was made after a long period of about two years. The reason for the delay is that the applicant’s might have misinterpreted the court order thereby failing to fully appreciate the full extent of its meaning. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">As for the application for rescission of judgment, the applicants urged this court to find the explanation for the default reasonable and that the matter enjoys good prospects of success. I will revert to the detailed accounts of the explanation in due course if it becomes necessary.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The first respondent opposed the applications and took a preliminary point that a dual application is not provided for in the rules. It is incompetent and must be struck off. Secondly that the deponent to the applicants’ founding affidavit lacks authority. On the merit the court was urged to dismiss the applications as there is no reasonable application for the delay and the extent of the delay is long. Also that the applicants have no prospects of success in the main matter.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">I shall address the issue on the dual application first. Both parties are agreed that there is no rule that provides for such an application. The respondent relied on the case of <i>Bramwell Bushu </i>v<i> GMB</i> HH326/17 where the court made the point that although there is no provision that an application must state in terms of which law it is made, it is desirable for astute legal practitioners to do so. I find the case irrelevant in the resolution of this issue. The case did not deal with dual applications. If there is any relevance it is that failure to state the rule of law in terms of which an application is made does not non suit a party.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The applicants relied on the case of <i>Tenke Fungurume Mining SA </i>v<i> Bruno Enterprises (Pvt) Ltd</i> HH 478/19 where the court allowed a dual application. I agree with the reasoning in the <i>Tenke </i>case. This court is a court of inherent jurisdiction. It is imbued with power to control its processes in the interests of justice. Therefore what is not prohibited and advances the interests of justice can be done by this court. It is also trite that rules are made for the court, they are a tool for use to achieve order in the hearing of cases. What the court has to consider is whether hearing dual application is not prejudicial to either party. In this case having the matters heard simultaneously is more convenient for both parties and the court and in turn ensuring the two matters are resolved expeditiously. The applicants’ justification for the dual application is persuasive. In the absence of any prejudice to either party, I find no reason not to hear the application. The preliminary point is dismissed.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The second point taken is that the deponent to the applicants’ founding affidavit has no authority. It is trite that a corporate body speaks through a board resolution. Where the authority of a deponent to such a company is challenged the Board resolution must be produced. It can be produced anytime during the proceedings. See generally </span></span></span><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Tapson Madzivire &amp; Ors </span></span></span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">v <i>Misheck Brian Zvarivadza &amp;</i> <i>Ors</i> SC 10/2006.</span></span></span><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">, </span></span></span><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">CE Dube </span></span></span></i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">v<i> PSMAS</i> SC73/19</span></span></span><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">In this case the authority was not attached to the application. It was handed over the bar by the applicant’s counsel. I find the authority valid although it was inelegantly prepared. That disposes of the point taken. The deponent was authorised to represent the applicants. The point taken is dismissed.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Condonation.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Condonation for the non-observance of the court’s rules is an indulgence granted at the discretion of the Court. This discretion is exercised judiciously upon a consideration of such factors as the extent of the delay and the reasonableness of explanation thereof, the prospects of success, the interest of justice and the interest of the parties in the finality of litigation. See generally <i>Friendship </i>v<i> Cargo Carriers Ltd &amp; Anor</i> 2013 (1) ZLR 1 (S).Where the extent of delay is long the court can decline condonation despite the prospects of success. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">This application was made almost two years after the default order was granted. The period of delay is long. The applicants became aware of the order immediately after it was granted. They decided to live with it. In their terms, they even partially complied with the order although this was disputed by the respondent. The applicants’ explanation for not seeking rescission in terms of the rules is that they misinterpreted the court order under HC2989/19. According to the applicant it understood the order to require them to issue a sand extraction permit which it did issue. The permit expired in September 2019.Secondly they did not understand the order to grant the first respondent an unbridled right to commence alluvial mining without complying with all the statutory requirements. In March 2021 the applicant discovered that the first respondent was conducting alluvial mining without an Environmental Impact Assessment Certificate. The first respondent approached the court and an order was granted based on the default order.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The explanation is unreasonable. The order by <span style="font-variant:small-caps">JUSTICE ZHOU</span> is very clear. It required the applicant to issue a Sand Extraction permit and all documents necessary for the first respondent to start its alluvial mining along Angwa River. The applicant chose not to comply with the order. The applicant selectively appreciated the issue in respect of the Sand Extraction permit only. It remained mum on the alluvial mining yet this is the very issue that has caused its problems. Even in its founding affidavit there is no explanation why it did not issue the necessary documents for alluvial mining to the first respondent. Since the applicant opted not to comply with the order, the order became the required permit and documents for the commencement of alluvial mining. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">In my view the issue is not the court order. The court order granted the first respondent the right to start its mining activities. This was in May 2019. All the necessary documents required for such mining were subsumed in the court order including the EIA at the commencement of the mining. The applicant cannot cry foul after two years. In terms of s 101 of the Environmental Management Act [<i>Chapter 20:27</i>] an EIA is valid for two years. Within the two years from the date of the default order the first respondent’s mining activities were validated by the court order. The applicant acted prematurely and the first respondent rightfully waived the court order to justify its operations when the environmental stop order was issued.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The basis of the complaint is baseless. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The applicant cannot plead for indulgence after two years when it made a conscious decision not to oppose the application. Even after the granting of the order, it consciously chose not to comply with the order. Had it complied with the order it would have had the opportunity to make sure the first respondent properly complied with the statutory requirements. The first applicant is reposed with the duty to superintendent over issues that affect the environment. A laid back approach as is evident <i>in casu i</i>s unacceptable. The applicant literally neglected its duties and only to come to court expecting some soft landing. It is not possible. The applicant cannot raise the issue of the importance of an EIA at this stage when, on being served with the application it did not appreciate the importance. Secondly when the default order was granted it did not appreciate its importance. Only to appreciate it when the first respondent had commenced its operations. Courts should not be seen to condone such an approach.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The applicants were in wilful default and the explanation for the delay in filing the application is unreasonable.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">I have already touched on the prospects of success in dealing with the explanation for the delay. There are no prospects of success in the main matter.   </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">There must be finality to litigation. The order was granted two years ago .The first respondent has arranged its business in terms of the court order. It is not in the interest of justice that such a matter be re visited. The applicant’s recourse as the superintendent of all such projects can only apply at the lapse of two years from the date of the court order.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The application for condonation is therefore dismissed. Since the applicant has not been condoned. The application for rescission of judgment cannot be considered. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">My finding then raise the issue on the form of order that should be granted. In my view the application for rescission of judgment cannot be dismissed since it has not been decided on the merits. It remains as an application placed before the court before condonation was granted. It is improperly before the court. The proper order then is to remove it from the roll.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">In the result, the following order is made.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <ol><li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The application for condonation for the late filing of an application for rescission of judgment be and is hereby dismissed with costs.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The application for rescission of a default judgment is removed from the roll.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Dube, Manikai &amp; Hwacha</span></span></span></i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">, applicants’ legal practitioners</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Zimudzi &amp; Associates</span></span></span></i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">, 1<sup>st</sup> respondent’s legal practitioners</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p></span></div></div> </div> </div> Mon, 10 Jan 2022 10:19:21 +0000 Sandra Muengwa 11472 at http://zimlii.org ZWLA v Minister of Justice, Legal & Parliamentary Affairs and 4 Others (13 of 2021) [2021] ZWCC 13 (09 December 2021); http://zimlii.org/zw/judgment/constitutional-court-zimbabwe/2021/13 <span class="field field--name-title field--type-string field--label-hidden">ZWLA v Minister of Justice, Legal &amp; Parliamentary Affairs and 4 Others (13 of 2021) [2021] ZWCC 13 (09 December 2021);</span> <div class="field field--name-field-flynote field--type-entity-reference field--label-above"> <div class="field__label">Flynote</div> <div class='field__items'> <div class="field__item"><a href="/taxonomy/term/1543" hreflang="en">Court&#039;s leave</a></div> <div class="field__item"><a href="/taxonomy/term/1566" hreflang="en">Jurisdiction</a></div> <div class="field__item"><a href="/taxonomy/term/1708" hreflang="en">Constitutional Law</a></div> <div class="field__item"><a href="/taxonomy/term/1712" hreflang="en">Legislative Amendment</a></div> </div> </div> <span class="field field--name-uid field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden"><span>Sandra Muengwa</span></span> <span class="field field--name-created field--type-created field--label-hidden">Mon, 12/20/2021 - 08:27</span> <div class="field field--name-field-files field--type-file field--label-above"> <div class="field__label">Download</div> <div class='field__items'> <div class="field__item"> <span class="file file--mime-application-vnd-openxmlformats-officedocument-wordprocessingml-document file--x-office-document"> <a href="https://media.zimlii.org/files/judgments/zwcc/2021/13/2021-zwcc-13.docx" type="application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document; length=44682">2021-zwcc-13.docx</a></span> </div> <div class="field__item"> <span class="file file--mime-application-pdf file--application-pdf"> <a href="https://media.zimlii.org/files/judgments/zwcc/2021/13/2021-zwcc-13.pdf" type="application/pdf; length=446267">2021-zwcc-13.pdf</a></span> </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-body field--type-text-with-summary field--label-hidden field__item"><p align="right" style="text-align:right"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Judgment No. CCZ 13/21</span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p align="right" style="text-align:right"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Constitutional Application No. CCZ 7/21</span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><u><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">REPORTABLE:</span></span></span></u></b><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">       (13)</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p> </p> <p align="center" style="text-align:center"> </p> <p align="center" style="margin-left:24px; text-align:center"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">    ZIMBABWE    WOMEN     LAWYERS     ASSOCIATION</span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p align="center" style="text-align:center"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">v</span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <ol><li align="center" style="margin-left:32px; text-align:center"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">    THE     MINISTER     OF     JUSTICE,     LEGAL     AND     PARLIAMENTARY     AFFAIRS     (2)     MINISTER     OF     WOMEN     AFFAIRS,     COMMUNITY     SMALL     AND     MEDIUM     ENTERPRISES     DEVELOPMENT     (3)     THE     ZIMBABWE     GENDER     COMMISSION     (4)     THE     ZIMBABWE     HUMAN     RIGHTS     COMMISSION     (5)     NATIONAL     COUNCIL     OF     CHIEFS     </span></span></b></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:72px"> </p> <p style="margin-left:72px"> </p> <p align="center" style="text-align:center"> </p> <p align="center" style="text-align:center"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF ZIMBABWE</span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">GARWE JCC, MAKARAU JCC &amp; GOWORA JCC</span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">HARARE: 13 JULY 2021 &amp; 9 DECEMBER 2021</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">C. Damiso </span></span></span></i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">with <i>D. Atukwa,</i> for the applicant</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">F. Chimbaru</span></span></span></i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">, for the first and second respondents</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">AN APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER OF LEAVE FOR DIRECT ACCESS TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT</span></span></span></i></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">GARWE JCC</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[1]        This is an application for an order of leave for direct access to the Constitutional Court (“the Court”) in terms of s 167(5) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment (No. 20) Act 2013 (“The Constitution”) as read with r 21 (2) of the Constitutional Court Rules S.I. 61/2016 (“the Rules”). In the event that such leave is granted, the applicant intends to bring an application before the Court in terms of s 85 of the Constitution seeking an order to the effect that the definition of a “marriage” provided in s 2 of the Matrimonial Causes Act [<i>Chapter 5:13</i>] (“the Act”) is constitutionally invalid because it deliberately discriminates against unregistered customary unions.  </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[2]        The applicant accepts that the first respondent introduced a Marriages Bill (HB 7, 2019) (“the Bill”) in Parliament and that according to its long title its objectives are, <i>inter alia, </i>to consolidate the law relating to marriages, to provide for the recognition and registration of customary law unions, to provide for the recognition of civil partnerships and to amend several statutes, including the Matrimonial Causes Act. At the hearing of this matter the Bill apparently had been transmitted to the Senate. A copy of the Bill was not made available to the Court. It was, however, common cause that the Bill was still to be debated in the Senate and that the processes provided for in Part 6 of Chapter 6 as read with the Fifth Schedule of the Constitution were still to be undertaken.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[3]        In these circumstances, it is unknown at this stage what the final fate of the Bill will be. It would therefore be most inappropriate for this Court to make any definitive pronouncement on a matter that is still under debate by Parliament. As the matter is not ripe for consideration by this Court, it would not be in the interest of justice that leave be granted for the applicant to approach this Court directly.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">FACTUAL BACKGROUND</span></span></span></i></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[4]        The applicant is a <i>universitas </i>whose objectives, <i>inter alia, </i>include dealing with all matters affecting the professional interests of women lawyers and promoting the legal status and rights of women and children. The application in respect of which direct access is sought is an application for a declaration of rights in terms of s 85 of the Constitution. The applicant contends that the definition of what constitutes a marriage under s 2 of the Act is unconstitutional in three respects. First, it excludes unregistered customary law unions. Therefore the safeguards that ensure fairness and equity in the division of property amongst spouses upon divorce are not available to women married under this regime. This amounts to discrimination and violates s 56 (1) of the Constitution as the needs of the spouses and their indirect contributions during the subsistence of the union are not taken into account. Secondly, the failure to treat unregistered customary unions as valid also violates the rights of the spouses to language and culture (s 63) and, third, human dignity (s 51).</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[5]        The applicant accepts that the Bill has been transmitted to the Senate. Although it engaged Parliament in order to include a clause recognising the validity of unregistered customary unions, it alleges that its proposals were not taken up. If given leave it will seek a declaration that s 2 of the Act is constitutionally invalid. It will also seek an order that pending the process of remedying the defect, s 2 of the Act be read to include an unregistered customary law union.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">SUBMISSIONS BEFORE THIS COURT</span></span></span></i></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[6]        Asked during oral submissions whether the matter was ripe for adjudication by the Court and whether this was not a matter for Parliament, counsel for the applicant, whilst acknowledging that no-one can tell at this point in time what the fate of the Bill in the Senate will be, as well as thereafter, argued that the matter is ripe for determination by this Court. She stated that there is nothing to stop this Court from determining whether s 2 of the Act, in its current form, is compliant with the Constitution. She accepted, however, that it was still possible for an amendment to be effected by Parliament in the current Bill.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[7]        In her submissions, counsel for the first and second respondents, whilst conceding that s 2 of the Act excludes customary law unions in its definition of what constitutes a marriage, argued that the applicant is asking this Court to usurp Parliament’s law-making functions. She further argued that the applicant can continue to lobby Parliament to amend the Bill to include unregistered customary marriages. Further, there is no guarantee that the President will assent to the Bill in its current form. Counsel, therefore, submitted that the applicant has no prospects of success because what it is asking this Court to do is take over Parliament’s legislative function.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">THE LAW ON DIRECT ACCESS</span></span></span></i></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[8]        Direct access to the Constitutional Court is an extraordinary procedure granted in deserving cases that meet the requirements prescribed by the relevant rules of the court. Rule 21 (3) of the Rules prescribes what must be contained in an application of this nature. It provides as follows:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">“(3) An application in terms of subrule (2) shall be filed with the Registrar and served on all parties with a direct or substantial interest in the relief claimed and shall set out –</span></span></span></span></span></p> <ol style="list-style-type:lower-alpha"><li style="margin-left:56px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">the grounds on which it is contended that it is in the interests of justice that an order for direct access be granted; and</span></span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:56px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">the nature of the relief sought and the grounds upon which such relief is based; and </span></span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:56px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">whether the matter can be dealt with by the Court without the hearing of oral evidence or, if it cannot, how such evidence should be adduced and any conflict of facts resolved.”</span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[9]        Rule 21 (8) of the Rules goes on to provide:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">“(8) In determining whether or not it is in the interests of justice for a matter to be brought directly to the Court, the Court or Judge may, <u>in addition to any other relevant consideration</u>, take the following into account:</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"> </p> <ol style="list-style-type:lower-alpha"><li style="margin-left:56px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">the prospects of success if direct access is granted;</span></span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:56px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">whether the applicant has any other remedy available to him or her;</span></span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:56px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">whether there are disputes of fact in the matter.” (Underlining is my own)</span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[10]      It follows from sub-rule (8) above, that the three factors itemised therein are not the only factors that may be taken into account. The rule is clear that, in addition, there may be other relevant considerations that this Court may take into account in deciding whether or not direct access should be granted. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[11]      Rule 21 (1) of the Rules provides for matters that fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the court. In respect of those matters, no other court other than this Court has jurisdiction. The court, however, shares concurrent jurisdiction with lower courts in respect of the remaining constitutional matters that may require determination. It is in respect of those matters that leave to approach the court directly is required. An applicant seeking direct access must show that it is in the interests of justice that the matter be heard directly by this Court at first instance. This is because direct access is by its very nature an extraordinary remedy that is granted in very few cases. As I Currie and J de Waal in <i>The Bill of Rights Handbook, </i>6ed, p 128 point out, constitutional matters cannot be brought directly to the court as a matter of course. If this were to be allowed, the court could get bogged down in cases in which there may be disputes of fact on which evidence might be necessary or may be called upon to decide constitutional issues which are not decisive of the litigation and which might prove to be of purely academic interest. It is also not ordinarily in the interests of justice for any court, including this Court, to sit as a court of first instance without there being the possibility of appealing against the decision taken.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[12]      This Court, in various cases, has stressed that an applicant for direct access must satisfy two requirements. He must, firstly, show why it is in the interests of justice to have the matter determined directly by the court. Secondly, he must show that the main application has prospects of success. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">DOCTRINE OF AVOIDANCE, RIPENESS</span></span></span></i></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[13]      It is not in dispute that, as the law currently stands, unregistered customary law unions have very limited recognition at law. In terms of s 3 of the Customary Marriages Act [<i>Chapter 5:07</i>] they are recognised as valid only for the purposes of legitimacy of the children born thereto and for the distribution of property upon the death of a spouse.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[14]      The doctrine of constitutional avoidance dates back to the United States of America Supreme Court decision in <i>Ashwander v Tennesse Valley Authority, </i>297 US 288 (1936). In that decision the court formulated the doctrine as consisting of seven rules, namely:-</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <ol><li style="margin-left:8px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The Court will not “pass upon” the constitutionality of legislation in a friendly, non-adversary, proceeding.</span></span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:8px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The Court will not anticipate a question of constitutional law in advance of the necessity of deciding it.</span></span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:8px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The Court will not formulate a rule of constitutional law broader than is required by the precise facts to which it is to be applied.</span></span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:8px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The Court will not pass upon a constitutional question, although properly presented by the record, if there is also present some other ground upon which the case may be disposed.</span></span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:8px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The Court will not pass upon the constitutionality of a statute unless the plaintiff was injured by operation of the statute.</span></span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:8px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The Court will not pass upon the constitutionality of a statute at the instance of one who has availed himself of its benefits.</span></span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:8px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Even if “serious doubt[s]” concerning the validity of an act of Congress are raised, the court will first ascertain “whether a construction of the statute is fairly possible by which the question may be avoided.”</span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[15]      Rule 2 as formulated in the above cited case constitutes what has come to be referred to as ripeness. The rule in essence postulates that there can be no anticipation of a constitutional issue in advance. The principle of ripeness is therefore part of the doctrine of avoidance. The basic rationale of the ripeness principle is to prevent the courts, through avoidance of premature adjudication, from entangling themselves in abstract disagreements over administrative policies and to protect the agencies from judicial interference until an administrative decision has been formalised and its effect felt in a concrete way by the litigating parties – <i>Abbot Laborates v Gardner</i> 387 US 136 1967.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[16]      <i>Hoexter, Administrative Law in South Africa,</i> 2<sup>nd</sup> ed 2012 at p 5