Supreme Court of Zimbabwe http://zimlii.org/ en Mukora and Another v Fishrod Investments (Private) Limited and 16 Others (46 of 2022) [2021] ZWSC 46 (20 May 2021); http://zimlii.org/zw/judgment/supreme-court-zimbabwe/2021/46-0 <span class="field field--name-title field--type-string field--label-hidden">Mukora and Another v Fishrod Investments (Private) Limited and 16 Others (46 of 2022) [2021] ZWSC 46 (20 May 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/2084" hreflang="x-default">Appeal to Supreme Court</a></div> <div class="field__item"><a href="/taxonomy/term/2297" hreflang="x-default">Application (INTERDICT)</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">Wed, 05/18/2022 - 10:02</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/2021/46/2021-zwsc-46_0.docx" type="application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document; length=23364">2021-zwsc-46.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/2021/46/2021-zwsc-46_0.pdf" type="application/pdf; length=287553">2021-zwsc-46.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-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-GB">Judgment No. SC 46/22</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-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-GB">Civil Appeal No. SC 289/20</span></b></span></span></span></p> <p align="right" style="text-align:right"> </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">    NESBERT     MUKORA     (2)     LIANGMIN     JIN</span></span></b></span></span></span></li> </ol><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> <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">FISHROD     INVESTMENTS     (PRIVATE)     LIMITED     AND     16 OTHERS</span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:106%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b>            </b></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">SUPREME COURT OF ZIMBABWE</span></span></b></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">MAVANGIRA JA, UCHENA JA &amp; KUDYA JA</span></span></b></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><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">HARARE, 20 MAY 2021</span></span></span></b></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-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">T. Mpofu</span></span></span></i><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">, for the appellants</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-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">T. Zhuwarara,</span></span></span></i><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"> for the respondents</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"><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">                        <b>UCHENA JA:           </b>This is an appeal against an order handed down by the High Court on 16 June 2020.  The first to the fourteenth respondents filed an Urgent Chamber Application in the High Court against the fifteenth to the sixteenth respondents seeking an interdict against disposal and transfer of a certain open space in the vicinity of Carlisle Drive in Alexandra Park, Harare.  A provisional order was granted against the fifteenth to seventeenth respondents.  The appellants who had an interest in the matter had not been cited.  The provisional order granted by the High Court affected them.</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"><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">                        After the provisional order had been granted, the first respondent sought the joinder of the appellants which was granted.  On the return date the High Court, after hearing the parties, granted an order which had not been sought by either party.  The appellants noted an appeal against that order and raised four grounds of appeal of which the third ground attacked the granting of an order not sought by the parties.  In their Heads of Argument, the respondents conceded that the court <i>a quo</i> had irregularly granted an order not sought by the parties.</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-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 view of this concession, the appeal should be allowed in terms of the relief sought as amended.  Accordingly it is ordered as follows:</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: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">The appeal be and is hereby allowed 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: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">The order of the court <i>a quo</i> is set aside and is substituted by the following:</span></span></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-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">“The application is dismissed with costs on a legal practitioner and client scale.”</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"><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">                        <b>MAVANGIRA JA:              </b>I agree</span></span></span></span></span></span><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">  </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: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">KUDYA JA:                          </span></span></span></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">I agree</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">Mutumbwa, Mugabe &amp; Partners, </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">appellant’s legal practitioners</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"><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Mawere Sibanda Commercial Lawyers, </span></span></i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">respondents’ legal practitioners</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-aaaabb9394ddb3fd9c0bf74eafdee8069f8e873057649de82513d739beac4a5f"> <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-GB" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-GB">Judgment No. SC 46/22</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-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-GB">Civil Appeal No. SC 289/20</span></b></span></span></span></p> <p align="right" style="text-align:right"> </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">    NESBERT     MUKORA     (2)     LIANGMIN     JIN</span></span></b></span></span></span></li> </ol><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> <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">FISHROD     INVESTMENTS     (PRIVATE)     LIMITED     AND     16 OTHERS</span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:106%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b>            </b></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">SUPREME COURT OF ZIMBABWE</span></span></b></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">MAVANGIRA JA, UCHENA JA &amp; KUDYA JA</span></span></b></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><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">HARARE, 20 MAY 2021</span></span></span></b></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-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">T. Mpofu</span></span></span></i><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">, for the appellants</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-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">T. Zhuwarara,</span></span></span></i><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"> for the respondents</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"><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">                        <b>UCHENA JA:           </b>This is an appeal against an order handed down by the High Court on 16 June 2020.  The first to the fourteenth respondents filed an Urgent Chamber Application in the High Court against the fifteenth to the sixteenth respondents seeking an interdict against disposal and transfer of a certain open space in the vicinity of Carlisle Drive in Alexandra Park, Harare.  A provisional order was granted against the fifteenth to seventeenth respondents.  The appellants who had an interest in the matter had not been cited.  The provisional order granted by the High Court affected them.</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"><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">                        After the provisional order had been granted, the first respondent sought the joinder of the appellants which was granted.  On the return date the High Court, after hearing the parties, granted an order which had not been sought by either party.  The appellants noted an appeal against that order and raised four grounds of appeal of which the third ground attacked the granting of an order not sought by the parties.  In their Heads of Argument, the respondents conceded that the court <i>a quo</i> had irregularly granted an order not sought by the parties.</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-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 view of this concession, the appeal should be allowed in terms of the relief sought as amended.  Accordingly it is ordered as follows:</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: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">The appeal be and is hereby allowed 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: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">The order of the court <i>a quo</i> is set aside and is substituted by the following:</span></span></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-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">“The application is dismissed with costs on a legal practitioner and client scale.”</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"><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">                        <b>MAVANGIRA JA:              </b>I agree</span></span></span></span></span></span><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">  </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: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">KUDYA JA:                          </span></span></span></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">I agree</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">Mutumbwa, Mugabe &amp; Partners, </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">appellant’s legal practitioners</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"><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Mawere Sibanda Commercial Lawyers, </span></span></i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">respondents’ legal practitioners</span></span></span></span></span></p></span></div></div> </div> </div> Wed, 18 May 2022 10:02:52 +0000 Sandra Muengwa 12494 at http://zimlii.org Lunat v Patel (47 of 2022) [2022] ZWSC 47 (07 April 2022); http://zimlii.org/zw/judgment/supreme-court-zimbabwe/2022/47 <span class="field field--name-title field--type-string field--label-hidden">Lunat v Patel (47 of 2022) [2022] ZWSC 47 (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/2205" hreflang="x-default">application for condonation</a></div> <div class="field__item"><a href="/taxonomy/term/2324" hreflang="x-default">chamber application</a></div> <div class="field__item"><a href="/taxonomy/term/2204" hreflang="x-default">Condonation (PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE)</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> </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">Wed, 05/18/2022 - 09:51</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/2022/47/2022-zwsc-47.docx" type="application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document; length=48714">2022-zwsc-47.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/2022/47/2022-zwsc-47.pdf" type="application/pdf; length=469053">2022-zwsc-47.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" style="margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">         Judgment No. SC  47/22</span></span></span></p> <p class="text-align-right" style="margin-left:240px; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">                                               Civil Appeal No. SCB 51/21</span></span></span></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><u><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">REPORTABLE</span></span></u></b><b><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">:       (37)</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">ISMAIL      MOOSA       LUNAT</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">MOHAMMED       PATEL</span></span></b></span></span></span><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="tab-stops:156.0pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">                                             </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></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">HIGH 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">CHATUKUTA JA</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">HARARE:  16 NOVEMBER 2021 &amp; 7 APRIL 2022</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"><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">P Dube</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 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-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 Samukange,</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 respondent</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:13px"><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">CHAMBER APPLICATION</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:13px"><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">                        <b>CHATUKUTA JA:</b>              This is an opposed chamber application for condonation of non-compliance with the rules and extension of time in which to appeal in terms of rule 43(1) of the Supreme Court Rules, 2018 (the rules). The application was filed on 6 October 2021. The applicant intends to appeal against the whole judgment of the High Court handed down on 12 December 2019 under HB 196/19. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:13px"><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 FACTS</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:2.0cm; margin-bottom:13px"><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 following facts are largely common cause. On 11 January 2019, the applicant signed an acknowledgment of debt in favour of the respondent in the sum of USD$384 177. The applicant undertook to pay the amount by 20 March 2019. He failed to pay the debt. The respondent issued summons against the applicant on the basis of the acknowledgement of debt. On 12 December 2019, summary judgment was entered in the respondent’s favour for payment of the sum of US$ 384 177.00, or its equivalent with interest at the prevailing interbank rate. </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; margin-bottom:13px"><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 applicant timeously noted an appeal against that judgment to this Court on 17 December 2019 under SCB 48/19. On 6 February 2020, the respondent was granted by the High Court leave to execute the summary judgment pending the appeal. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:2.0cm; margin-bottom:13px"><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 2 March 2020, the applicant was called upon by the Registrar of the High Court to pay costs for the preparation of the appeal record. The applicant, acting on advice from his legal practitioners, decided not to pay the costs. He instead took a decision to abandon the appeal and settle the judgment debt. He deposited an amount of ZW$384 177.00 into the respondent’s attorneys’ trust account on 17 March 2020. The payment was at the parity rate of 1:1 notwithstanding the order by the court <i>a quo</i> that the rate to be applied was the prevailing interbank rate. On 7 July 2020, the Registrar of the Supreme Court, acting in terms of r 46 (5) of the Supreme Court Rules, 2018, wrote to the applicant’s legal practitioners advising them that the appeal had been deemed to have lapsed.</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">On 24 March 2020 the applicant unsuccessfully sought an interim order for stay of execution of the judgment under HB 196/19 and, as final relief, a declaratur that he had acquitted his indebtedness by paying the amount of ZW$384 177.00. The applicant noted an appeal under SC 117/20 against the dismissal of his application. The matter was struck off the roll on 19 July 2021 for the reason that the appeal was fatally defective. Undeterred, the applicant sought condonation of non-compliance with the rules and extension of time in which to appeal on 28 August 2021 under SCB35/21. The application was dismissed on 8 November 2021 in SC 142/21.  </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 respondent thereafter commenced civil imprisonment proceedings against the applicant. This prompted the applicant to file the present application on 6 October 2021. </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"><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">ISSUE FOR DETERMINATION</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">The issue for determination in my view is whether the applicant has satisfied the requirements for an application for condonation for the late noting of an appeal and extension of time in which to appeal. </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"><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 BY THE PARTIES</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"><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">Applicant’s  Submissions</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">Miss <i>Dube</i>, for the applicant, conceded that there has been an inordinate delay in seeking the condonation. She conceded that the applicant’s legal practitioners took a deliberate decision to abandon the appeal. She further conceded that the<i> </i>explanation tendered by the applicant was evidently unreasonable in view of the deliberate abandonment of the appeal. She also conceded that the applicant ought to have proceeded in terms of r 48 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2018 which rule sets out the procedure which an appellant should follow if he/she/it chooses to abandon an appeal. </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">She</span></span></span><i> </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">conceded that the applicant’s conduct was indefensible.</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">Miss <i>Dube</i> submitted that in spite of the concessions regarding the applicant’s infractions, this Court ought to grant the application for condonation nonetheless on the basis that the applicant has prospects of success on appeal. She submitted that the applicant intends to raise an unassailable point of law in his prospective appeal. The point had not been raised before the lower court and would be raised in the intended appeal as a new point of law.  She further argued that the other prospective grounds of appeal in the draft notice of appeal raise arguable issues warranting the granting of the condonation. </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"> </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">She however conceded that punitive costs as prayed for by the respondent were warranted even if the applicant succeeds in this appeal.</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"><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">Respondent’s Submissions</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">Riding on the concessions by Miss <i>Dube</i>, Mr <i>Samukange</i>, for the respondent, submitted that the applicant was not entitled to the relief sought. He submitted that the requirements for such an application must be considered cumulatively. He also submitted that the applicant would not be entitled to the indulgence of the court in light of the concessions made. Furthermore, that the applicant does not have prospects of success on appeal and that the application should be dismissed with costs on a punitive scale.</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">Mr <i>Samukange </i>however raised other issues which in my view are irrelevant to the determination of the application in view of the concessions by the applicant.</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"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:13px"><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; margin-bottom:13px"><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 requirements for an application of this nature are well established. They are:</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="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 extent of the delay;</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="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 reasonableness of the explanation for the delay; </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="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 prospects of success on appeal;</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="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">Respondent’s interest in the finality of the judgment in his/her/its favour; </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="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">Convenience of the court; and</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="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">Avoidance of unnecessary delay in the administration of justice.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:2.0cm; margin-bottom:13px"><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">See <i>Kombayi </i>v <i>Berkhout<b> </b></i>1988 (1) ZLR 53 </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) 57G-58A; </span></span></span><i><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">Herbstein &amp; Van Winsen</span></span></span></i><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"> <i>The Civil Practice of the Supreme Court of South Africa</i> 4<sup>th</sup> ed at p 898.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:2.0cm; margin-bottom:13px"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:2.0cm; margin-bottom:13px"><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 requirements were rehashed by Z<span style="font-variant:small-caps">iyambi</span> JA in <i>Zimslate Quartzite (Pvt) Ltd &amp; Ors </i>v <i>Central African Building Society </i>SC 34/17 where she held at p 7 that:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-7.65pt; margin-bottom:13px"><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">“An applicant, who has infringed the rules of the court before which he appears, must apply for condonation and in that application explain the reasons for the infraction.  He must take the court into his confidence and give an honest account of his default in order to enable the court to arrive at a decision as to whether to grant the indulgence sought.  <b>An applicant who takes the attitude that indulgences, including that of condonation, are there for the asking does himself a disservice as he takes the risk of having his application dismissed</b>.”(own emphasis)</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-7.65pt; margin-bottom:13px"> </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">Therefore, in considering whether or not the Court should grant the applicant <i>in casu</i>, the indulgence sought, I have to consider the reasons advanced by the applicant in his explanation for the failure to comply with the rules. The court retains a discretion on whether to condone the non-compliance with the rules taking into account the principles of justice, fair play and the established factors that have to be considered in the exercise of this discretion. </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">A party seeking condonation and extension of time must satisfy the court that a valid and justifiable reason exists as to why compliance did not occur and why non-compliance should be condoned. Further, regardless of the prospects of success, a court may decline to grant condonation where it considers the explanation for failure to comply with the rules unacceptable.</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; margin-bottom:13px"><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 was stated in <i>Kodzwa </i>v <i>Secretary for Health </i>&amp;<i> Anor<b> </b></i>1999 (1) ZLR 313 </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">at 315 F-H </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) 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">:</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-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">“Whilst the presence of reasonable prospects of success on appeal is an important consideration which is relevant to the granting of condonation, <b><u>it is not necessarily decisive. </u></b>Thus in the case of a flagrant breach of the rules, particularly where there is no acceptable explanation for it, the indulgence of condonation may be refused, whatever the merits of the appeal may be. This was made clear by Muller JA in <i>P E Bosman Transport Works Committee &amp; Ors</i> v <i>Piet Bosman Transport (Pty) Ltd</i> 1980 (4) SA 794 (A) at 799D-E, where the learned Judge of Appeal said: </span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:96px; 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-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">‘In a case such as the present, <b><u>where there has been a flagrant breach of the Rules of this court in more than one respect, and where in addition there is no acceptable explanation for some periods of delay and, indeed, in respect of other periods of delay, no explanation at all, the application should, in my opinion, not be granted whatever the prospects of success may be.’</u></b></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-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The same point was made by Hoexter JA in <i>Rennie</i> v <i>Kamby Farms (Pty) Ltd</i> 1989 (2) SA 124 (A) at 131G-J where the learned Judge of Appeal said: </span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:96px; 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-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">‘In applications of this sort, the prospects of success are in general an important, although not decisive, consideration. It has been pointed out (<i>Finbro Furnishers (Pty) Ltd</i> v <i>Registrar of Deeds, Bloemfontein &amp; Ors</i> 1985 (4) SA 773 (A) at 789C) <b>that <u>the court is bound to make an assessment of the petitioner‘s prospects of success as one of the factors relevant to the exercise of the court‘s discretion unless the cumulative effect of the other relevant factors in the case is such as to render the application for condonation obviously unworthy of consideration.</u></b> It seems to me that in the instant case the cumulative effect of the factors which I have summarised … above is by itself sufficient to render the application unworthy of consideration; and that <b><u>this is a case in which the court should refuse the application irrespective of the prospects of success</u></b>.’” (own emphasis)</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:13px"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:63.8pt; margin-bottom:13px"><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">See also<i> </i></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">Jaison Kokerai Machaya</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"> v <i>Lameck Nkiwane Muyambi</i> </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">SC 4/05.</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">APPLICATION OF THE LAW</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"><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">Extent of the delay</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">The judgment under HB 196/19 that the applicant seeks to appeal against was handed down on 12 December 2019. The applicant was required to have noted the appeal on or before 9 January 2020. This application was filed 21 months out of time. The notice of appeal that was timeously filed under SCB 48/19 was deemed to have lapsed on 7 July 2020. The present application was filed 15 months after the lapse of the appeal. The inordinate delay has been properly conceded by the applicant.  </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:13px"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:13px"><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">REASONABLENESS OF THE EXPLANATION FOR THE DELAY</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:2.0cm; margin-bottom:13px"><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 the applicant’s submission that the reason for his delay was that he had received advice, which advice he accepted, from one of the senior partners at the firm of his legal practitioners, to settle the debt in accordance with the dictates of the case of  <i>Zambezi Gas</i><b> </b>v <i>N.R Barber and Anor</i> SC 3/20.<b>  </b>He paid the debt in Zimbabwean dollars which the respondent did not accept on the grounds that the applicant was required to pay the debt at the prevailing interbank rate or in US dollars as ordered in HB 196/19. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:2.0cm; margin-bottom:13px"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:2.0cm; margin-bottom:13px"><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 applicant contended that he instructed his legal practitioner to brief counsel to review his case. It is then that it became clear to him that any argument on the invalidity of a judgment under SC 48/19 would best be made in an appeal against the judgment itself. He discovered that his original notice of appeal was not in accordance with the rules as it did not clearly and concisely state the grounds of appeal and the exact prayer sought. He then decided not to seek the reinstatement of the appeal and opted to pursue the present route.</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; margin-bottom:13px"><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">Miss <i>Dube</i> conceded that the explanation was not satisfactory. In spite of the concession, it is necessary to interrogate the explanation as it must be considered cumulatively with the other requirements. </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; margin-bottom:13px"><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 reason for the delay proffered by the applicant is very simple. It is that he took a deliberate decision not to pay costs for the preparation of the record of appeal upon being requested to do so by the Registrar. Instead of pursuing the appeal under SC 48/19, he sought to pursue other options to satisfy the judgment debt. </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"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:2.0cm; margin-bottom:13px"><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">To say the explanation was not satisfactory is an understatement. The explanation was hopelessly unsatisfactory for a number of reasons. Firstly, the applicant made a calculated decision not to pursue the appeal. He decided to settle the judgment debt at the parity rate in spite of the dictates of the judgement which required him to pay the debt at the interbank rate. The import of the decision he took is that the applicant chose to disregard a court judgment which was extant. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:2.0cm; margin-bottom:13px"><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 judgment remained binding because the applicant deliberately chose not to test the correctness of the judgment that he now seeks to appeal against. He instead decided to apply his own rate to pay off the judgment debt which was contrary to the rate prescribed in the judgment. This was a clear disdain and open defiance of an order of court as i</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">t was incumbent upon the applicant to pay at the prevailing interbank rate. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:2.0cm"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:13px"><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">                Secondly, after the applicant opted on a rate to apply other than the interbank rate, he hit a brick wall when the respondent indicated that he had not fully discharged the judgment debt. He decided to seek a stay of execution in circumstances where the respondent had successfully obtained an order for execution of the judgment pending appeal under HB 196/19. Leave to execute had in fact been granted unopposed. The application for stay of execution was filed on 24 March 2021, a year after the Registrar had requested the applicant to pay costs for preparation of the appeal record. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:2.0cm; margin-bottom:13px"><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 appeal under SC 48/19 had been deemed by virtue of r 46 (5) of the Rules, to have lapsed by operation of law. The application for stay of execution was therefore launched </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">notwithstanding the fact that there was no pending appeal against the judgment HB 196/19 which appeal the applicant had unilaterally and intentionally abandoned.</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">There was no legal basis for the application for stay as there was no pending appeal. The applicant further sought a declaratur as the final relief on the basis that he had discharged his indebtedness by paying the judgment debt at the parity rate. </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; margin-bottom:13px"><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 again was notwithstanding the extant judgment under </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">HB 196/19 which stipulated that payment be at the interbank rate</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">. In essence, the applicant was seeking in the final order to set aside the judgment under HB196/19 through an urgent chamber application. The final relief sought was therefore not competent.</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; margin-bottom:13px"><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">Thirdly, the applicant was not a self-actor. He was represented by counsel at all times. He disregarded the rules of court on the advice of his legal practitioners. He stated in para 16 of the founding affidavit that: </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-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">“16.     The understanding of my legal practitioners, which I share, was that, in the wake of the judgment of this Honourable Court in the Zambezi Gas case, and given the date of the debt in this matter, I was entitled to pay ZW384 177.00 as the parity rate applied to the debt.”</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:13px"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:2.0cm; margin-bottom:13px"><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">The applicant </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">agreed with the advice given by his legal practitioners. He </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">is therefore not blameless. </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">The applicant, being represented, ought to have known of the probable ramifications that could arise due to his abandonment of the appeal.</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; margin-bottom:13px"><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">Fourthly, instead of pursuing an appeal against the judgment under HB 196/19, the applicant, acting on the advice of counsel, unsuccessfully sought to challenge the judgment by the High Court dismissing his application for stay of execution not only once but twice.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:63.8pt; margin-bottom:13px"><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">Fifthly, the decision to pursue his appeal again was only prompted by the respondent’s decision to institute civil imprisonment proceedings. It is only then that he decided to have counsel briefed. Prior to the civil imprisonment proceedings, the applicant was happy to delay the execution of the judgment under HB 196/19 by pursuing incompetent proceedings <i>a quo</i> and before this Court.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:63.8pt"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:2.0cm; margin-bottom:13px"><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 spite of the concession by the applicant that the delay is inordinate and that the explanation for the delay is unsatisfactory, a litigant who wantonly disregards the rules of this court (and brazenly states so in his founding affidavit) does not deserve the indulgence of the court. The indulgence of the court should be reserved for parties who inadvertently do not comply with the rules. In <b><i>Ndebele v Ncube </i></b>1992 (1) ZLR 288 (S) at 290 C-D it was held that:</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-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">“It is the policy of the law that there should be finality in litigation. On the other hand one does not want to do injustice to litigants. But it must be observed that in recent years applications for rescission, for condonation, for leave to apply or appeal out of time, and for other relief arising out of delays either by the individual or his lawyer, have rocketed in numbers. We are bombarded with excuses for failure to act. We are beginning to hear more appeals for charity than for justice. Incompetence is becoming a growth industry. Petty disputes are argued and then re-argued until the costs far exceed the capital amount in dispute. </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: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">……………</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; text-indent:20.7pt; margin-bottom:13px"><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 was further held at 290E-F that:</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"><b><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">“There will always be cases where the delay is due to some reasonable incapacity to act in time, or to some understandable oversight such as the misfiling, or misplacing of a document. This is not such a case. …….The time had come to call a halt to the throwing of good money after bad.</span></span></b><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">”(own emphasis)</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:13px"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:2.0cm; margin-bottom:13px"><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 import of the averments by the applicant is that despite having deliberately disregarded the rules on the advice of counsel, he can come back two years later to seek the indulgence of this Court. The impression created by the applicant’s averments and concessions is that condonation is for the asking solely on the basis that the applicant’s appeal is arguable. To extend indulgence under the present circumstances would, in my view, bring the administration of justice into disrepute.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:2.0cm; margin-bottom:13px"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:13px"><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">INTEREST OF THE RESPONDENT IN THE FINALITY TO LITIGATION</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:2.0cm; margin-bottom:13px"><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">One of the considerations in deciding whether or not to grant condonation is the respondent’s interest in the finality of the judgment of the court. The respondent obtained judgment on 12 December 2019. After the applicant noted an appeal against the judgment, the respondent obtained an order for leave to execute on 6 February 2020. </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; margin-bottom:13px"><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 respondent caused the execution of the judgment. He successfully opposed the application by the applicant for stay of execution. He resisted the appeal under SC 117/20. He opposed the application for condonation for late noting of appeal under SCB35/21. He instituted civil imprisonment proceedings against the applicant. The respondent has clearly exhibited an interest in the finality of the litigation between him and the applicant. </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; margin-bottom:13px"><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 respondent has obviously proceeded for the past two years under the impression that the applicant no longer intends to pursue the appeal only to be landed with an application to resuscitate the appeal wilfully abandoned two years ago. </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"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:2.0cm; margin-bottom:13px"><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 order to forestall the civil proceedings instituted by the respondent, the applicant now wishes to appeal against the judgment granted in 2019.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:2.0cm"> </p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; text-indent:2.0cm"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Courier New&quot;"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:200%" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">As stated in <i>Jaison Kokerai Machaya</i> v <i>Lameck Nkiwane Muyambi</i> (<i>supra</i>) at p 5:</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyTextIndent3" style="margin-left:48px; text-indent:0cm; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:&quot;Courier New&quot;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-GB">“</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">The notion that condonation of a breach of the Rules is there for the asking ought to be dispelled.   And, there must be finality to litigation.   <b>It is an injustice to a party who has been waiting to execute his judgment to be forced to suffer the effects of the disregard by the other party’s legal practitioners of the Rules of Court, namely, the delaying of the execution of his judgment.</b>” </span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt; margin-bottom:13px"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:2.0cm; margin-bottom:13px"><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 the applicant’s attitude is that the longer it takes for the respondent to enjoy the benefits of the judgment under HH 196/19 the better for him. This cannot be countenanced by the law as there must be finality to litigation.</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></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">PROSPECTS OF SUCCESS</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-top:16px; text-align:justify; text-indent:63.8pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:411.1pt"><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 applicant argued that he intends to introduce new points of law in his intended appeal. I have therefore considered that the question whether the applicant has prospects of success is not decisive. (See </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">Kodzwa v Secretary for Health &amp; Anor</span></span></span></i><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">, </span></span></span></b><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">supra</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">).<b> </b></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">The applicant could have prosecuted his appeal under SC 48/19 and raised in that appeal the very point of law in that appeal which it now seeks to raise in the proposed appeal. </span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-top:16px; text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"> </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 <i>The Ampthill Peerage [1977] </i>AC 547 at 569 L<span style="font-variant:small-caps">ord</span> W<span style="font-variant:small-caps">ilberforce</span> remarked 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-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">“Any determination of dispute of fact may, the law recognises, be imperfect; the law aims at providing the best and safest conclusion compatible with human fallibility, and having reached that solution it closes the book. The law knows. And we all know, that sometimes fresh material may be found, which perhaps might lead to a different result, but, in the interest of peace, certainty and security it prevents further inquiry.”</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:2.0cm; margin-bottom:13px"><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 prospects of success or lack thereof of the applicant’s prospective appeal are outweighed by the other requirements for condonation. This is borne out by Miss <i>Dube</i>’s concession that the applicant’s infractions warrant an order of punitive costs.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:2.0cm"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:13px"><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">COSTS</span></span></span></b></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: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">Costs follow the cause. Miss <i>Dube </i>conceded that punitive costs were warranted in the present case.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:13px"><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; margin-bottom:13px"><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 beset by infractions of the rules of this Court. The delay by the applicant in seeking the condonation is considerable and clearly inordinate. The explanation tendered in support of the application is also unsatisfactory especially when considering the concession by the applicant’s counsel that the infraction was deliberate. The applicant does not deserve the indulgence of the court.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:2.0cm; margin-bottom:13px"><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 the result, the application is dismissed with costs on a legal practitioner and client scale.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:13px"> </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">Ncube Attorneys</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">Samukange Hungwe Legal Practitioners</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">, respondent’s legal practitioners</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-3951c0071913c708e6f1e89120a78cf815ff159ceb7a6603b645f4a6e01a70ad"> <div><div class="views-field views-field-views-conditional-field"><span class="field-content"><p class="text-align-right" style="margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">         Judgment No. SC  47/22</span></span></span></p> <p class="text-align-right" style="margin-left:240px; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">                                               Civil Appeal No. SCB 51/21</span></span></span></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><u><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">REPORTABLE</span></span></u></b><b><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">:       (37)</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">ISMAIL      MOOSA       LUNAT</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">MOHAMMED       PATEL</span></span></b></span></span></span><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="tab-stops:156.0pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">                                             </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></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">HIGH 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">CHATUKUTA JA</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">HARARE:  16 NOVEMBER 2021 &amp; 7 APRIL 2022</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"><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">P Dube</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 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-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 Samukange,</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 respondent</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:13px"><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">CHAMBER APPLICATION</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:13px"><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">                        <b>CHATUKUTA JA:</b>              This is an opposed chamber application for condonation of non-compliance with the rules and extension of time in which to appeal in terms of rule 43(1) of the Supreme Court Rules, 2018 (the rules). The application was filed on 6 October 2021. The applicant intends to appeal against the whole judgment of the High Court handed down on 12 December 2019 under HB 196/19. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:13px"><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 FACTS</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:2.0cm; margin-bottom:13px"><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 following facts are largely common cause. On 11 January 2019, the applicant signed an acknowledgment of debt in favour of the respondent in the sum of USD$384 177. The applicant undertook to pay the amount by 20 March 2019. He failed to pay the debt. The respondent issued summons against the applicant on the basis of the acknowledgement of debt. On 12 December 2019, summary judgment was entered in the respondent’s favour for payment of the sum of US$ 384 177.00, or its equivalent with interest at the prevailing interbank rate. </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; margin-bottom:13px"><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 applicant timeously noted an appeal against that judgment to this Court on 17 December 2019 under SCB 48/19. On 6 February 2020, the respondent was granted by the High Court leave to execute the summary judgment pending the appeal. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:2.0cm; margin-bottom:13px"><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 2 March 2020, the applicant was called upon by the Registrar of the High Court to pay costs for the preparation of the appeal record. The applicant, acting on advice from his legal practitioners, decided not to pay the costs. He instead took a decision to abandon the appeal and settle the judgment debt. He deposited an amount of ZW$384 177.00 into the respondent’s attorneys’ trust account on 17 March 2020. The payment was at the parity rate of 1:1 notwithstanding the order by the court <i>a quo</i> that the rate to be applied was the prevailing interbank rate. On 7 July 2020, the Registrar of the Supreme Court, acting in terms of r 46 (5) of the Supreme Court Rules, 2018, wrote to the applicant’s legal practitioners advising them that the appeal had been deemed to have lapsed.</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">On 24 March 2020 the applicant unsuccessfully sought an interim order for stay of execution of the judgment under HB 196/19 and, as final relief, a declaratur that he had acquitted his indebtedness by paying the amount of ZW$384 177.00. The applicant noted an appeal under SC 117/20 against the dismissal of his application. The matter was struck off the roll on 19 July 2021 for the reason that the appeal was fatally defective. Undeterred, the applicant sought condonation of non-compliance with the rules and extension of time in which to appeal on 28 August 2021 under SCB35/21. The application was dismissed on 8 November 2021 in SC 142/21.  </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 respondent thereafter commenced civil imprisonment proceedings against the applicant. This prompted the applicant to file the present application on 6 October 2021. </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"><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">ISSUE FOR DETERMINATION</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">The issue for determination in my view is whether the applicant has satisfied the requirements for an application for condonation for the late noting of an appeal and extension of time in which to appeal. </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"><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 BY THE PARTIES</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"><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">Applicant’s  Submissions</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">Miss <i>Dube</i>, for the applicant, conceded that there has been an inordinate delay in seeking the condonation. She conceded that the applicant’s legal practitioners took a deliberate decision to abandon the appeal. She further conceded that the<i> </i>explanation tendered by the applicant was evidently unreasonable in view of the deliberate abandonment of the appeal. She also conceded that the applicant ought to have proceeded in terms of r 48 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2018 which rule sets out the procedure which an appellant should follow if he/she/it chooses to abandon an appeal. </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">She</span></span></span><i> </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">conceded that the applicant’s conduct was indefensible.</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">Miss <i>Dube</i> submitted that in spite of the concessions regarding the applicant’s infractions, this Court ought to grant the application for condonation nonetheless on the basis that the applicant has prospects of success on appeal. She submitted that the applicant intends to raise an unassailable point of law in his prospective appeal. The point had not been raised before the lower court and would be raised in the intended appeal as a new point of law.  She further argued that the other prospective grounds of appeal in the draft notice of appeal raise arguable issues warranting the granting of the condonation. </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"> </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">She however conceded that punitive costs as prayed for by the respondent were warranted even if the applicant succeeds in this appeal.</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"><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">Respondent’s Submissions</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">Riding on the concessions by Miss <i>Dube</i>, Mr <i>Samukange</i>, for the respondent, submitted that the applicant was not entitled to the relief sought. He submitted that the requirements for such an application must be considered cumulatively. He also submitted that the applicant would not be entitled to the indulgence of the court in light of the concessions made. Furthermore, that the applicant does not have prospects of success on appeal and that the application should be dismissed with costs on a punitive scale.</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">Mr <i>Samukange </i>however raised other issues which in my view are irrelevant to the determination of the application in view of the concessions by the applicant.</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"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:13px"><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; margin-bottom:13px"><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 requirements for an application of this nature are well established. They are:</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="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 extent of the delay;</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="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 reasonableness of the explanation for the delay; </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="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 prospects of success on appeal;</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="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">Respondent’s interest in the finality of the judgment in his/her/its favour; </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="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">Convenience of the court; and</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="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">Avoidance of unnecessary delay in the administration of justice.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:2.0cm; margin-bottom:13px"><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">See <i>Kombayi </i>v <i>Berkhout<b> </b></i>1988 (1) ZLR 53 </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) 57G-58A; </span></span></span><i><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">Herbstein &amp; Van Winsen</span></span></span></i><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"> <i>The Civil Practice of the Supreme Court of South Africa</i> 4<sup>th</sup> ed at p 898.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:2.0cm; margin-bottom:13px"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:2.0cm; margin-bottom:13px"><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 requirements were rehashed by Z<span style="font-variant:small-caps">iyambi</span> JA in <i>Zimslate Quartzite (Pvt) Ltd &amp; Ors </i>v <i>Central African Building Society </i>SC 34/17 where she held at p 7 that:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-7.65pt; margin-bottom:13px"><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">“An applicant, who has infringed the rules of the court before which he appears, must apply for condonation and in that application explain the reasons for the infraction.  He must take the court into his confidence and give an honest account of his default in order to enable the court to arrive at a decision as to whether to grant the indulgence sought.  <b>An applicant who takes the attitude that indulgences, including that of condonation, are there for the asking does himself a disservice as he takes the risk of having his application dismissed</b>.”(own emphasis)</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-7.65pt; margin-bottom:13px"> </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">Therefore, in considering whether or not the Court should grant the applicant <i>in casu</i>, the indulgence sought, I have to consider the reasons advanced by the applicant in his explanation for the failure to comply with the rules. The court retains a discretion on whether to condone the non-compliance with the rules taking into account the principles of justice, fair play and the established factors that have to be considered in the exercise of this discretion. </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">A party seeking condonation and extension of time must satisfy the court that a valid and justifiable reason exists as to why compliance did not occur and why non-compliance should be condoned. Further, regardless of the prospects of success, a court may decline to grant condonation where it considers the explanation for failure to comply with the rules unacceptable.</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; margin-bottom:13px"><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 was stated in <i>Kodzwa </i>v <i>Secretary for Health </i>&amp;<i> Anor<b> </b></i>1999 (1) ZLR 313 </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">at 315 F-H </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) 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">:</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-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">“Whilst the presence of reasonable prospects of success on appeal is an important consideration which is relevant to the granting of condonation, <b><u>it is not necessarily decisive. </u></b>Thus in the case of a flagrant breach of the rules, particularly where there is no acceptable explanation for it, the indulgence of condonation may be refused, whatever the merits of the appeal may be. This was made clear by Muller JA in <i>P E Bosman Transport Works Committee &amp; Ors</i> v <i>Piet Bosman Transport (Pty) Ltd</i> 1980 (4) SA 794 (A) at 799D-E, where the learned Judge of Appeal said: </span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:96px; 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-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">‘In a case such as the present, <b><u>where there has been a flagrant breach of the Rules of this court in more than one respect, and where in addition there is no acceptable explanation for some periods of delay and, indeed, in respect of other periods of delay, no explanation at all, the application should, in my opinion, not be granted whatever the prospects of success may be.’</u></b></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-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The same point was made by Hoexter JA in <i>Rennie</i> v <i>Kamby Farms (Pty) Ltd</i> 1989 (2) SA 124 (A) at 131G-J where the learned Judge of Appeal said: </span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:96px; 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-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">‘In applications of this sort, the prospects of success are in general an important, although not decisive, consideration. It has been pointed out (<i>Finbro Furnishers (Pty) Ltd</i> v <i>Registrar of Deeds, Bloemfontein &amp; Ors</i> 1985 (4) SA 773 (A) at 789C) <b>that <u>the court is bound to make an assessment of the petitioner‘s prospects of success as one of the factors relevant to the exercise of the court‘s discretion unless the cumulative effect of the other relevant factors in the case is such as to render the application for condonation obviously unworthy of consideration.</u></b> It seems to me that in the instant case the cumulative effect of the factors which I have summarised … above is by itself sufficient to render the application unworthy of consideration; and that <b><u>this is a case in which the court should refuse the application irrespective of the prospects of success</u></b>.’” (own emphasis)</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:13px"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:63.8pt; margin-bottom:13px"><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">See also<i> </i></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">Jaison Kokerai Machaya</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"> v <i>Lameck Nkiwane Muyambi</i> </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">SC 4/05.</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">APPLICATION OF THE LAW</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"><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">Extent of the delay</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">The judgment under HB 196/19 that the applicant seeks to appeal against was handed down on 12 December 2019. The applicant was required to have noted the appeal on or before 9 January 2020. This application was filed 21 months out of time. The notice of appeal that was timeously filed under SCB 48/19 was deemed to have lapsed on 7 July 2020. The present application was filed 15 months after the lapse of the appeal. The inordinate delay has been properly conceded by the applicant.  </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:13px"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:13px"><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">REASONABLENESS OF THE EXPLANATION FOR THE DELAY</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:2.0cm; margin-bottom:13px"><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 the applicant’s submission that the reason for his delay was that he had received advice, which advice he accepted, from one of the senior partners at the firm of his legal practitioners, to settle the debt in accordance with the dictates of the case of  <i>Zambezi Gas</i><b> </b>v <i>N.R Barber and Anor</i> SC 3/20.<b>  </b>He paid the debt in Zimbabwean dollars which the respondent did not accept on the grounds that the applicant was required to pay the debt at the prevailing interbank rate or in US dollars as ordered in HB 196/19. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:2.0cm; margin-bottom:13px"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:2.0cm; margin-bottom:13px"><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 applicant contended that he instructed his legal practitioner to brief counsel to review his case. It is then that it became clear to him that any argument on the invalidity of a judgment under SC 48/19 would best be made in an appeal against the judgment itself. He discovered that his original notice of appeal was not in accordance with the rules as it did not clearly and concisely state the grounds of appeal and the exact prayer sought. He then decided not to seek the reinstatement of the appeal and opted to pursue the present route.</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; margin-bottom:13px"><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">Miss <i>Dube</i> conceded that the explanation was not satisfactory. In spite of the concession, it is necessary to interrogate the explanation as it must be considered cumulatively with the other requirements. </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; margin-bottom:13px"><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 reason for the delay proffered by the applicant is very simple. It is that he took a deliberate decision not to pay costs for the preparation of the record of appeal upon being requested to do so by the Registrar. Instead of pursuing the appeal under SC 48/19, he sought to pursue other options to satisfy the judgment debt. </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"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:2.0cm; margin-bottom:13px"><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">To say the explanation was not satisfactory is an understatement. The explanation was hopelessly unsatisfactory for a number of reasons. Firstly, the applicant made a calculated decision not to pursue the appeal. He decided to settle the judgment debt at the parity rate in spite of the dictates of the judgement which required him to pay the debt at the interbank rate. The import of the decision he took is that the applicant chose to disregard a court judgment which was extant. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:2.0cm; margin-bottom:13px"><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 judgment remained binding because the applicant deliberately chose not to test the correctness of the judgment that he now seeks to appeal against. He instead decided to apply his own rate to pay off the judgment debt which was contrary to the rate prescribed in the judgment. This was a clear disdain and open defiance of an order of court as i</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">t was incumbent upon the applicant to pay at the prevailing interbank rate. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:2.0cm"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:13px"><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">                Secondly, after the applicant opted on a rate to apply other than the interbank rate, he hit a brick wall when the respondent indicated that he had not fully discharged the judgment debt. He decided to seek a stay of execution in circumstances where the respondent had successfully obtained an order for execution of the judgment pending appeal under HB 196/19. Leave to execute had in fact been granted unopposed. The application for stay of execution was filed on 24 March 2021, a year after the Registrar had requested the applicant to pay costs for preparation of the appeal record. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:2.0cm; margin-bottom:13px"><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 appeal under SC 48/19 had been deemed by virtue of r 46 (5) of the Rules, to have lapsed by operation of law. The application for stay of execution was therefore launched </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">notwithstanding the fact that there was no pending appeal against the judgment HB 196/19 which appeal the applicant had unilaterally and intentionally abandoned.</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">There was no legal basis for the application for stay as there was no pending appeal. The applicant further sought a declaratur as the final relief on the basis that he had discharged his indebtedness by paying the judgment debt at the parity rate. </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; margin-bottom:13px"><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 again was notwithstanding the extant judgment under </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">HB 196/19 which stipulated that payment be at the interbank rate</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">. In essence, the applicant was seeking in the final order to set aside the judgment under HB196/19 through an urgent chamber application. The final relief sought was therefore not competent.</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; margin-bottom:13px"><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">Thirdly, the applicant was not a self-actor. He was represented by counsel at all times. He disregarded the rules of court on the advice of his legal practitioners. He stated in para 16 of the founding affidavit that: </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-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">“16.     The understanding of my legal practitioners, which I share, was that, in the wake of the judgment of this Honourable Court in the Zambezi Gas case, and given the date of the debt in this matter, I was entitled to pay ZW384 177.00 as the parity rate applied to the debt.”</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:13px"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:2.0cm; margin-bottom:13px"><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">The applicant </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">agreed with the advice given by his legal practitioners. He </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">is therefore not blameless. </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">The applicant, being represented, ought to have known of the probable ramifications that could arise due to his abandonment of the appeal.</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; margin-bottom:13px"><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">Fourthly, instead of pursuing an appeal against the judgment under HB 196/19, the applicant, acting on the advice of counsel, unsuccessfully sought to challenge the judgment by the High Court dismissing his application for stay of execution not only once but twice.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:63.8pt; margin-bottom:13px"><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">Fifthly, the decision to pursue his appeal again was only prompted by the respondent’s decision to institute civil imprisonment proceedings. It is only then that he decided to have counsel briefed. Prior to the civil imprisonment proceedings, the applicant was happy to delay the execution of the judgment under HB 196/19 by pursuing incompetent proceedings <i>a quo</i> and before this Court.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:63.8pt"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:2.0cm; margin-bottom:13px"><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 spite of the concession by the applicant that the delay is inordinate and that the explanation for the delay is unsatisfactory, a litigant who wantonly disregards the rules of this court (and brazenly states so in his founding affidavit) does not deserve the indulgence of the court. The indulgence of the court should be reserved for parties who inadvertently do not comply with the rules. In <b><i>Ndebele v Ncube </i></b>1992 (1) ZLR 288 (S) at 290 C-D it was held that:</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-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">“It is the policy of the law that there should be finality in litigation. On the other hand one does not want to do injustice to litigants. But it must be observed that in recent years applications for rescission, for condonation, for leave to apply or appeal out of time, and for other relief arising out of delays either by the individual or his lawyer, have rocketed in numbers. We are bombarded with excuses for failure to act. We are beginning to hear more appeals for charity than for justice. Incompetence is becoming a growth industry. Petty disputes are argued and then re-argued until the costs far exceed the capital amount in dispute. </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: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">……………</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; text-indent:20.7pt; margin-bottom:13px"><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 was further held at 290E-F that:</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"><b><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">“There will always be cases where the delay is due to some reasonable incapacity to act in time, or to some understandable oversight such as the misfiling, or misplacing of a document. This is not such a case. …….The time had come to call a halt to the throwing of good money after bad.</span></span></b><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">”(own emphasis)</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:13px"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:2.0cm; margin-bottom:13px"><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 import of the averments by the applicant is that despite having deliberately disregarded the rules on the advice of counsel, he can come back two years later to seek the indulgence of this Court. The impression created by the applicant’s averments and concessions is that condonation is for the asking solely on the basis that the applicant’s appeal is arguable. To extend indulgence under the present circumstances would, in my view, bring the administration of justice into disrepute.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:2.0cm; margin-bottom:13px"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:13px"><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">INTEREST OF THE RESPONDENT IN THE FINALITY TO LITIGATION</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:2.0cm; margin-bottom:13px"><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">One of the considerations in deciding whether or not to grant condonation is the respondent’s interest in the finality of the judgment of the court. The respondent obtained judgment on 12 December 2019. After the applicant noted an appeal against the judgment, the respondent obtained an order for leave to execute on 6 February 2020. </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; margin-bottom:13px"><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 respondent caused the execution of the judgment. He successfully opposed the application by the applicant for stay of execution. He resisted the appeal under SC 117/20. He opposed the application for condonation for late noting of appeal under SCB35/21. He instituted civil imprisonment proceedings against the applicant. The respondent has clearly exhibited an interest in the finality of the litigation between him and the applicant. </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; margin-bottom:13px"><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 respondent has obviously proceeded for the past two years under the impression that the applicant no longer intends to pursue the appeal only to be landed with an application to resuscitate the appeal wilfully abandoned two years ago. </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"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:2.0cm; margin-bottom:13px"><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 order to forestall the civil proceedings instituted by the respondent, the applicant now wishes to appeal against the judgment granted in 2019.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:2.0cm"> </p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; text-indent:2.0cm"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Courier New&quot;"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:200%" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">As stated in <i>Jaison Kokerai Machaya</i> v <i>Lameck Nkiwane Muyambi</i> (<i>supra</i>) at p 5:</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyTextIndent3" style="margin-left:48px; text-indent:0cm; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:&quot;Courier New&quot;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-GB">“</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-US">The notion that condonation of a breach of the Rules is there for the asking ought to be dispelled.   And, there must be finality to litigation.   <b>It is an injustice to a party who has been waiting to execute his judgment to be forced to suffer the effects of the disregard by the other party’s legal practitioners of the Rules of Court, namely, the delaying of the execution of his judgment.</b>” </span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt; margin-bottom:13px"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:2.0cm; margin-bottom:13px"><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 the applicant’s attitude is that the longer it takes for the respondent to enjoy the benefits of the judgment under HH 196/19 the better for him. This cannot be countenanced by the law as there must be finality to litigation.</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></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">PROSPECTS OF SUCCESS</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-top:16px; text-align:justify; text-indent:63.8pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:411.1pt"><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 applicant argued that he intends to introduce new points of law in his intended appeal. I have therefore considered that the question whether the applicant has prospects of success is not decisive. (See </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">Kodzwa v Secretary for Health &amp; Anor</span></span></span></i><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">, </span></span></span></b><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">supra</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">).<b> </b></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">The applicant could have prosecuted his appeal under SC 48/19 and raised in that appeal the very point of law in that appeal which it now seeks to raise in the proposed appeal. </span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-top:16px; text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"> </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 <i>The Ampthill Peerage [1977] </i>AC 547 at 569 L<span style="font-variant:small-caps">ord</span> W<span style="font-variant:small-caps">ilberforce</span> remarked 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-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">“Any determination of dispute of fact may, the law recognises, be imperfect; the law aims at providing the best and safest conclusion compatible with human fallibility, and having reached that solution it closes the book. The law knows. And we all know, that sometimes fresh material may be found, which perhaps might lead to a different result, but, in the interest of peace, certainty and security it prevents further inquiry.”</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:2.0cm; margin-bottom:13px"><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 prospects of success or lack thereof of the applicant’s prospective appeal are outweighed by the other requirements for condonation. This is borne out by Miss <i>Dube</i>’s concession that the applicant’s infractions warrant an order of punitive costs.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:2.0cm"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:13px"><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">COSTS</span></span></span></b></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: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">Costs follow the cause. Miss <i>Dube </i>conceded that punitive costs were warranted in the present case.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:13px"><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; margin-bottom:13px"><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 beset by infractions of the rules of this Court. The delay by the applicant in seeking the condonation is considerable and clearly inordinate. The explanation tendered in support of the application is also unsatisfactory especially when considering the concession by the applicant’s counsel that the infraction was deliberate. The applicant does not deserve the indulgence of the court.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:2.0cm; margin-bottom:13px"><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 the result, the application is dismissed with costs on a legal practitioner and client scale.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:13px"> </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">Ncube Attorneys</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">Samukange Hungwe Legal Practitioners</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">, respondent’s legal practitioners</span></span></span></span></span></p></span></div></div> </div> </div> Wed, 18 May 2022 09:51:27 +0000 Sandra Muengwa 12493 at http://zimlii.org Masanza and Another (Informa pauperis) v Rwafa and 2 Others (49 of 2022) [2022] ZWSC 49 (06 April 2022); http://zimlii.org/zw/judgment/supreme-court-zimbabwe/2022/49 <span class="field field--name-title field--type-string field--label-hidden">Masanza and Another (Informa pauperis) v Rwafa and 2 Others (49 of 2022) [2022] ZWSC 49 (06 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/2345" hreflang="x-default">Acquisition of land</a></div> <div class="field__item"><a href="/taxonomy/term/1657" hreflang="en">Stay of Execution</a></div> <div class="field__item"><a href="/taxonomy/term/2208" hreflang="x-default">claim for eviction (Summary judgment)</a></div> <div class="field__item"><a href="/taxonomy/term/2269" hreflang="x-default">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">Wed, 05/18/2022 - 09:39</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/2022/49/2022-zwsc-49.docx" type="application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document; length=26339">2022-zwsc-49.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/2022/49/2022-zwsc-49.pdf" type="application/pdf; length=530107">2022-zwsc-49.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"><span style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;">Judgment No. SC 49/22</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">Chamber Application No. SC 91/22</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><u><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">DISTRIBUTABLE (39)</span></span></span></u></b></span></span></span></p> <p> </p> <ol><li align="center" style="margin-left:32px; text-align:center"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:115%"><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:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">NGWARU     MASANZA (<i>Informa pauperis</i>)     (2)    PRISCILLA     ZUNGUZA (<i>Informa pauperis</i>)       </span></span></span></b></span></span></span></li> </ol><p align="center" style="text-align:center"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:115%"><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:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">v</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <ol><li style="margin-left:80px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:115%"><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:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">LUKE     RWAFA     (2) PLACXEDAS     RWAFA     </span></span></span></b></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:120px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:115%"><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:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">(3) MESSENGER     OF     COURT</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p align="center" style="text-align:center"> </p> <p><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">SUPREME COURT OF ZIMBABWE</span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p><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">HARARE, 6 APRIL 2022 </span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p> </p> <p><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">Mr <i>T. Biti,</i> for the applicants</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><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">Ms<i> V. Vhera,</i> for the 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:150%"><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">URGENT CHAMBER APPLICATION</span></span></span></u></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">CHIWESHE JA</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">:       In this urgent chamber application the applicants seek a provisional order couched as follows:</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"><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">            <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: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">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:56px; 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">That a stay of execution of the order given in CHN 286/19 be granted pending application in the High Court for condonation for late filing of leave to appeal.</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="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 event that this matter is opposed, that the Respondents be and are hereby ordered to pay costs.</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="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">INTERIM RELIEF GRANTED </span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:96px; 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">Pending finalisation of this matter an interim order is hereby granted in the following terms:</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: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 ORDERED THAT:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <ol><li 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 lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">This application succeeds and a stay of execution of the judgment in the Chinhoyi Magistrates’ Court under case number CHN 286/19 be and is hereby granted to the applicants pending application in the High Court for condonation for late filing of leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.”</span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><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></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">FACTUAL BACKGROUND</span></span></span></u></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-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 early 2000, at the height of the land reform programme, the applicants and many others moved to occupy Heydon Farm on the outskirts of Harare.  They proceeded to build family homes and to engage in agricultural activities.  Subsequently the whole of Heydon Farm was compulsorily acquired by the State and a notice to that effect was published in the Government Gazette in terms of the Land Acquisition Act [<i>Chapter 20:10</i>]. Contrary to their expectations none of the occupiers were favoured with either offer letters, permits or lease agreements which documents would have regularised their stay at Heydon Farm. Instead part of the farm was subdivided into residential stands with title deeds and sold to various persons. This formalised part of the farm is referred to as Heydon Township. The respondents who are husband and wife bought one of these residential stands described as stand 2915 Haydon Township, measuring 2193 square metres and received title. It is common cause that at the time of sale and transfer the applicants were resident at what became the respondents’ residential stand.  It is also common cause that the applicants have no legal basis to occupy Heydon Farm in general or the respondents’ stand in particular.</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"><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 order to assert their proprietary rights, the respondents approached the Magistrates’ Court at Chinhoyi seeking an eviction order against the applicants. Their application succeeded and an order for the eviction of the applicants from Stand 2915 Haydon Township was granted under case number CHN 286/19. Aggrieved with that outcome the applicants noted an appeal with the High Court (the court <i>a</i> <i>quo)</i>. The court <i>a quo </i>dismissed the appeal and confirmed the eviction order granted by the Magistrates’ Court. The respondents then noted an appeal with this Court under case number SC 277/20 which appeal suspended the order of the court <i>a quo</i>.  Undeterred, the respondents filed an application for leave to execute pending appeal. The application was granted by CHITAPI J under case number HC 3097/20.  The applicants noted an appeal against that judgment under case number SC 441/20.  The appeal was struck off the roll on the grounds that leave to appeal ought to have been sought in the court <i>a quo.</i></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-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 meantime, pursuant to the order by CHITAPI J, the applicants were served with a notice of attachment and eviction from the respondents’ stand. The notice is dated 28 February 2022.  It is that notice that has triggered the present urgent chamber application wherein stay of execution is sought.  The application is opposed.</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-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 raised two preliminary issues, namely that the matter is not urgent and that the application has since been overtaken by events on the ground. It is argued that the urgency is self-created as the applicants failed to act when the need to act arose on 15 February 2022 when the applicants’ appeal under case number SC 441/20 was struck off the roll.  The applicants should have known that as a result the respondents would, in the absence of a pending appeal, proceed with eviction. Instead of acting there and then the applicants waited till they were served with the notice of attachment and eviction dated 28 February 2022, thirteen days after SC 441/20 was struck off. I am of the view that the criticism levelled against the applicants in this regard is not warranted. A delay of thirteen days cannot, in the circumstances of this case, be regarded as inordinate. The applicants had been to this Court on appeal. They were not sitting on their laurels. The appeal was not dismissed but struck off the roll on a technicality. They are attending at the High Court seeking leave to appeal. Whilst awaiting the results they were served with the notice of eviction. They have reacted swiftly to that notice by filing the present application. I would for those reasons dismiss the preliminary issue and hold that the matter be treated as urgent.</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-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">                        However, the second preliminary issue has merit and is dispositive of the application. The respondents contended that the applicants have been evicted from their stand in terms of an extant eviction order. Mr <i>Biti</i>, for the applicants, has not denied that his clients have been evicted. Instead he sought to<b> </b>argue that the eviction was not effectively carried out as the Messenger of Court only threw out the applicants’ property but left the dwelling shack intact. The implication being that the applicants, having been evicted returned to occupy the shack. It would be remiss of this Court to run along with Mr <i>Biti’s </i>suggestion and reverse an eviction properly executed in terms of a court order on the grounds that the Messenger of Court ought to have destroyed the dwelling shack. What was to be evicted are the applicants and not their shack. I hold therefore that the eviction was effected and that the applicants’ return to the stand is in direct disregard of a lawfully given court order. This Court cannot condone their contemptuous conduct.</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-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 agree with the respondents that in view of the applicants’ eviction this application has been overtaken by events and has thus been rendered moot. It cannot succeed.</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-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 the applicants are indigent there shall be no order as to costs.</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">                        </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-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 ordered 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: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 be and is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.”</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-bfef16bd9a62c78823e255a9dc83c14aeff578ebe141b2118ef18fc446bebc1c"> <div><div class="views-field views-field-views-conditional-field"><span class="field-content"><p class="text-align-right"><span style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;">Judgment No. SC 49/22</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">Chamber Application No. SC 91/22</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><u><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">DISTRIBUTABLE (39)</span></span></span></u></b></span></span></span></p> <p> </p> <ol><li align="center" style="margin-left:32px; text-align:center"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:115%"><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:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">NGWARU     MASANZA (<i>Informa pauperis</i>)     (2)    PRISCILLA     ZUNGUZA (<i>Informa pauperis</i>)       </span></span></span></b></span></span></span></li> </ol><p align="center" style="text-align:center"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:115%"><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:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">v</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <ol><li style="margin-left:80px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:115%"><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:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">LUKE     RWAFA     (2) PLACXEDAS     RWAFA     </span></span></span></b></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:120px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:115%"><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:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">(3) MESSENGER     OF     COURT</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p align="center" style="text-align:center"> </p> <p><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">SUPREME COURT OF ZIMBABWE</span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p><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">HARARE, 6 APRIL 2022 </span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p> </p> <p><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">Mr <i>T. Biti,</i> for the applicants</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><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">Ms<i> V. Vhera,</i> for the 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:150%"><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">URGENT CHAMBER APPLICATION</span></span></span></u></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">CHIWESHE JA</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">:       In this urgent chamber application the applicants seek a provisional order couched as follows:</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"><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">            <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: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">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:56px; 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">That a stay of execution of the order given in CHN 286/19 be granted pending application in the High Court for condonation for late filing of leave to appeal.</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="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 event that this matter is opposed, that the Respondents be and are hereby ordered to pay costs.</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="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">INTERIM RELIEF GRANTED </span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:96px; 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">Pending finalisation of this matter an interim order is hereby granted in the following terms:</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: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 ORDERED THAT:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <ol><li 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 lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">This application succeeds and a stay of execution of the judgment in the Chinhoyi Magistrates’ Court under case number CHN 286/19 be and is hereby granted to the applicants pending application in the High Court for condonation for late filing of leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.”</span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><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></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">FACTUAL BACKGROUND</span></span></span></u></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-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 early 2000, at the height of the land reform programme, the applicants and many others moved to occupy Heydon Farm on the outskirts of Harare.  They proceeded to build family homes and to engage in agricultural activities.  Subsequently the whole of Heydon Farm was compulsorily acquired by the State and a notice to that effect was published in the Government Gazette in terms of the Land Acquisition Act [<i>Chapter 20:10</i>]. Contrary to their expectations none of the occupiers were favoured with either offer letters, permits or lease agreements which documents would have regularised their stay at Heydon Farm. Instead part of the farm was subdivided into residential stands with title deeds and sold to various persons. This formalised part of the farm is referred to as Heydon Township. The respondents who are husband and wife bought one of these residential stands described as stand 2915 Haydon Township, measuring 2193 square metres and received title. It is common cause that at the time of sale and transfer the applicants were resident at what became the respondents’ residential stand.  It is also common cause that the applicants have no legal basis to occupy Heydon Farm in general or the respondents’ stand in particular.</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"><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 order to assert their proprietary rights, the respondents approached the Magistrates’ Court at Chinhoyi seeking an eviction order against the applicants. Their application succeeded and an order for the eviction of the applicants from Stand 2915 Haydon Township was granted under case number CHN 286/19. Aggrieved with that outcome the applicants noted an appeal with the High Court (the court <i>a</i> <i>quo)</i>. The court <i>a quo </i>dismissed the appeal and confirmed the eviction order granted by the Magistrates’ Court. The respondents then noted an appeal with this Court under case number SC 277/20 which appeal suspended the order of the court <i>a quo</i>.  Undeterred, the respondents filed an application for leave to execute pending appeal. The application was granted by CHITAPI J under case number HC 3097/20.  The applicants noted an appeal against that judgment under case number SC 441/20.  The appeal was struck off the roll on the grounds that leave to appeal ought to have been sought in the court <i>a quo.</i></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-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 meantime, pursuant to the order by CHITAPI J, the applicants were served with a notice of attachment and eviction from the respondents’ stand. The notice is dated 28 February 2022.  It is that notice that has triggered the present urgent chamber application wherein stay of execution is sought.  The application is opposed.</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-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 raised two preliminary issues, namely that the matter is not urgent and that the application has since been overtaken by events on the ground. It is argued that the urgency is self-created as the applicants failed to act when the need to act arose on 15 February 2022 when the applicants’ appeal under case number SC 441/20 was struck off the roll.  The applicants should have known that as a result the respondents would, in the absence of a pending appeal, proceed with eviction. Instead of acting there and then the applicants waited till they were served with the notice of attachment and eviction dated 28 February 2022, thirteen days after SC 441/20 was struck off. I am of the view that the criticism levelled against the applicants in this regard is not warranted. A delay of thirteen days cannot, in the circumstances of this case, be regarded as inordinate. The applicants had been to this Court on appeal. They were not sitting on their laurels. The appeal was not dismissed but struck off the roll on a technicality. They are attending at the High Court seeking leave to appeal. Whilst awaiting the results they were served with the notice of eviction. They have reacted swiftly to that notice by filing the present application. I would for those reasons dismiss the preliminary issue and hold that the matter be treated as urgent.</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-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">                        However, the second preliminary issue has merit and is dispositive of the application. The respondents contended that the applicants have been evicted from their stand in terms of an extant eviction order. Mr <i>Biti</i>, for the applicants, has not denied that his clients have been evicted. Instead he sought to<b> </b>argue that the eviction was not effectively carried out as the Messenger of Court only threw out the applicants’ property but left the dwelling shack intact. The implication being that the applicants, having been evicted returned to occupy the shack. It would be remiss of this Court to run along with Mr <i>Biti’s </i>suggestion and reverse an eviction properly executed in terms of a court order on the grounds that the Messenger of Court ought to have destroyed the dwelling shack. What was to be evicted are the applicants and not their shack. I hold therefore that the eviction was effected and that the applicants’ return to the stand is in direct disregard of a lawfully given court order. This Court cannot condone their contemptuous conduct.</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-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 agree with the respondents that in view of the applicants’ eviction this application has been overtaken by events and has thus been rendered moot. It cannot succeed.</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-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 the applicants are indigent there shall be no order as to costs.</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">                        </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-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 ordered 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: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 be and is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.”</span></span></span></span></span></span></p></span></div></div> </div> </div> Wed, 18 May 2022 09:39:36 +0000 Sandra Muengwa 12492 at http://zimlii.org Lonrho Logistics (Private) Limited v Ram Petroleum (Private) Limited (50 of 2022) [2022] ZWSC 50 (12 May 2022); http://zimlii.org/zw/judgment/supreme-court-zimbabwe/2022/50 <span class="field field--name-title field--type-string field--label-hidden">Lonrho Logistics (Private) Limited v Ram Petroleum (Private) Limited (50 of 2022) [2022] ZWSC 50 (12 May 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/1722" hreflang="en">Breach of Sale Agreement</a></div> <div class="field__item"><a href="/taxonomy/term/1723" hreflang="en">Remedies For Breach of Contract</a></div> <div class="field__item"><a href="/taxonomy/term/1760" hreflang="en">Contract of Sale</a></div> <div class="field__item"><a href="/taxonomy/term/2310" hreflang="x-default">Customs duty</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">Wed, 05/18/2022 - 09:14</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/2022/50/2022-zwsc-50.docx" type="application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document; length=35679">2022-zwsc-50.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/2022/50/2022-zwsc-50.pdf" type="application/pdf; length=461512">2022-zwsc-50.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">Judgment No. SC 50/22</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">Civil Appeal No. SC 79/21</span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><u><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">REPORTABLE  (40)</span></span></span></u></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-bottom:11px"> </p> <p align="center" style="text-align:center"> </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-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">LONRHO     LOGISTICS     (PRIVATE)     LIMITED</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-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><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-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">RAM     PETROLEUM     (PRIVATE)     LIMITED</span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-bottom:11px"> </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-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">SUPREME 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-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">UCHENA JA, MATHONSI JA &amp; KUDYA JA</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-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">HARARE, 8 MARCH 2022 &amp; 12 MAY 2022</span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </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-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">Mr <i>T Mpofu</i>, for the appellant</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"><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">Mr <i>D Ochieng</i>, for the respondent</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:72.0pt"><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">MATHONSI JA</span></span></span></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">:       Dismayed by the respondent’s outright refusal to deliver to it outstanding fuel in terms of an agreement of sale entered into between the parties, the appellant filed a claim for specific performance in the High Court (“the court <i>a</i> <i>quo</i>”).  The appellant sought judgment compelling the respondent to deliver 120 000 litres of diesel purchased from the respondent.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:72.0pt"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:72.0pt"><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">By judgment delivered on 31 March 2021, the court <i>a quo </i>dismissed the claim and issued the following order:</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"><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">            “Accordingly, I order as follows:</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: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">The plaintiff’s claim is dismissed.</span></span></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-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The contract entered into between the parties whereby the plaintiff purchased 150 000 lrs of fuel from the defendant be and is hereby cancelled.</span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:72px; text-align:justify"> </p> <ol start="3"><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-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The defendant be and is hereby is (sic) ordered to pay the plaintiff the sum of $159 300.00 representing the plaintiff’s partial performance of the contract.</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: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 plaintiff be and is hereby ordered to pay the defendant’s costs of suit.”</span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:48px"> </p> <p style="margin-left:72px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:72.0pt"><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">This is an appeal against that whole judgment of the court <i>a quo</i>.  </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"><b><u><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 FACTS</span></span></span></u></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>                        </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">The background facts are largely common cause.  The appellant is a transporter of note while the respondent is a fuel monger. They have a long standing business relationship whereby the respondent has been supplying the appellant with bulk fuel over the years.  On 1 November 2018, the parties entered into a sale agreement in terms of which the respondent sold and the appellant purchased 150 000 litres of diesel.</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-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">                        On 2 November 2018 the appellant paid the purchase price of $201 000 in terms of the invoice presented to it by the respondent but did not take delivery of the diesel in question.  In fact, it was not until 28 November 2018 that the respondent delivered only 30 000 litres of the diesel on the instructions of the appellant.  This left a balance of 120 000 litres of diesel which is the subject of the present litigation involving the parties.</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-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">                        Problems started in January 2019 when three events occurred in quick succession. First, the Minister of Finance and Economic Development gazetted the Customs and Excise (Tariff) (Amendment) Notice, (No. 7, 2019) as S.I 9 of 2019.  The Statutory Instrument came into operation on 13 January 2019.  It was enacted to amend Part II of the Second Schedule of the Customs and Excise (Tariff) Notice, 2017 which was published in Statutory Instrument 53 of 2017.</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-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">                        Second, and subsequently to that, the Petroleum (Petroleum Products Pricing) Regulations S.I 10 of 2019 were gazetted.  Section 3 thereof made it clear that they applied to “petroleum products prices in relation to wholesaling and retailing activities.”  Section 5 provided the formulas that were to be applied by the Zimbabwe Energy Regulatory Authority (“ZERA”) in calculating the price of any petroleum product.</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-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 is significant to note that the amount of duty imposed by S.I 10 of 2019 appears to have been equivalent to the amount fixed by S.I 9 of 2019, which, as I have stated, specifically stated that it came into operation on 13 January 2019 without in any way suggesting that it had retrospective effect.</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-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">                        Third, and obviously in response to the imperatives of the Statutory Instruments referred to above, the ZERA issued a directive requiring all oil companies to declare their fuel stocks as of midnight on 12 January 2019.  The directive was contained in a circular dated 17 January 2019 which reads in relevant part: </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-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">“<u>RE: DECLARATION OF OIL COMPANY FUEL STOCKS AS OF MIDNIGHT 12<sup>TH</sup> JANUARY 2019</u> </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></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-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Pursuant to the meeting held at the Ministry of Finance on the 16<sup>th</sup> January 2019 between Ministry of Energy and Power Development, Ministry of Finance, Zimbabwe Energy Regulatory Authority and Oil Companies, the authority requires that Oil Companies declare the details of the following:-</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"> </p> <ol><li style="margin-left:56px; text-align:justify" value="0"><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">Stockholding of diesel, petrol and paraffin held by the Oil Company at depot or at NOIC (old duty paid) as of midnight 12<sup>th</sup> January 2019 before the new pricing (Statutory Instrument 10 of 2019) came into effect.</span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify"> </p> <ol><li style="margin-left:56px; text-align:justify" value="0"><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">Outstanding coupons (yet to be redeemed) as of midnight 12<sup>th</sup> January 2019, indicating products category of customers, volumes and value as well as special conditions attaching to coupons.</span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-left:54px; 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-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Oil Companies are further advised that they are required to pay the difference in duty between the old duty and new duty to ZIMRA on the stock referred to in 1.0 as the fuel will be sold in terms of S.I 10 of 2019</span></span></u><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">.” (The underlining is for emphasis)</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></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-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">                        Following these developments the appellant moved quickly.  On 24 January 2019, it demanded the immediate delivery of the balance of 120 000 litres of diesel.  The respondent was unmoved.  Citing an increase in duty, the respondent refused to deliver until the appellant paid additional duty on the outstanding diesel.</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-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">                        By email of 24 January 2019 the respondent tabled three options available to the appellant. The respondent wrote:</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"><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">            “… we wish to provide you with below three options.</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: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">Lonrho pay the difference of duty amounting to $1.65.</span></span></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-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Lonrho can draw down at the current price of fuel to exhaust your prepayment with us.</span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:72px; text-align:justify"> </p> <ol start="3"><li style="margin-left:32px; 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">RAM Petroleum can refund Lonrho the total amount prepaid.” </span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:72.0pt"><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">The appellant would have none of it.  Calling the respondent’s proposal “nonsense”, it emotionally put its case across that the ZERA directive did not apply to the diesel that had already been sold.  With the battle lines drawn, the appellant enlisted the services of its legal practitioners whose letter of demand to the respondent yielded nothing.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:72.0pt"> </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-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">PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT <i>A QUO</i></span></span></span></u></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-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">                        On 7 February 2019 the appellant sued out a summons against the respondent seeking an order directing the respondent to deliver the outstanding diesel.  The claim was contested by the respondent.  In a long winding plea characterized by a number of alternative averments, the respondent pleaded the existence of a tacit term of the agreement that the appellant should have taken delivery within seventy two hours after effecting payment.</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-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 addition, it asserted that s 230 (1) of the Customs and Excise Act [<i>Chapter 23:02</i>] constituted an implied term that it was entitled to recover from the appellant any amount by which duty was increased.  Some of the pleas raised by the respondent related to fictional fulfilment of the contract in the sense that it had tendered delivery of the diesel which the appellant refused. Also, that by failing to accept delivery, the appellant had repudiated the contract thereby entitling the respondent to cancel it and tender the sum of $159 300.00 being the difference.</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-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">                        Following a full trial, the court <i>a quo</i> found that the contract became <i>perfecta </i>when the parties agreed on the thing sold (the <i>merx</i>), the price (<i><u>pretium</u></i>) and showed they had the requisite <i>animus </i>to contract.  It was the court <i>a quo’s </i>finding that the contract was perfected when the respondent accepted the payment for the 150 000 litres of diesel.</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-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">                        Regarding transfer of ownership of the diesel, the court <i>a quo </i>remarked:</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-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">“It is evident to me that in the present matter, transfer of ownership of the fuel in question happened by way of <i>constitutum possessorium </i> without actual delivery of the thing and by means of a mere change in the parties’ intention regarding <i>animus domini</i>.  The change in <i>animus </i>in this matter repeatedly took place each time the plaintiff paid for the fuel and the defendant accepted payment for the fuel. By that exchange, the plaintiff acquired ownership in the fuel, when looking at the facts in the present matter means that ownership of the 150 000 litres transferred to the plaintiff in early November 2018.”</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:72.0pt"><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">Notwithstanding those findings, the court <i>a quo </i>went on to find that the burden for paying for the increase in duty passed to the appellant. Further, it found that by failing to accept delivery, the appellant repudiated the contract of sale.  In disposing of the matter, other than dismissing the appellant’s claim, the court <i>a quo </i>also granted positive relief to the respondent, namely the cancellation of the contract and the return of the purchase price paid by the appellant.</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><u><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">PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THIS COURT</span></span></span></u></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-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 appellant remained aggrieved.  It noted this appeal on the following grounds of appeal.</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: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">Having come to the conclusion that the contract between the parties had become <i>perfecta </i>and ownership passed to the appellant, the court <i>a quo </i>erred in not concluding that provisions of Statutory Instrument 10 of 2019 were, on the circumstances of the matter, not engaged in that:</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><ol style="list-style-type:lower-alpha"><li style="margin-left:104px; 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">The duty chargeable under and in terms of that Statutory Instrument was not meant to and did not affect transactions that had already been concluded.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:104px; 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">Respondent did not place before the court any evidence tending to show that it had been required to and had in fact paid additional duties on fuel already purchased by appellant.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><ol start="2"><li style="margin-left:32px; 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">The court <i>a quo </i>erred at any rate in concluding that the increase of duty on future sales was a risk which appellant was required to bear by operation of law.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:32px; 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">Consequently, the court <i>a quo </i>erred in not finding that respondent had breached the agreement between the parties by reason of its failure to deliver diesel that had been purchased by appellant.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:32px; 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">The court <i>a quo </i> seriously misdirected itself on the facts, such misdirection amounting to an error in law in not finding at any rate, that there was no agreement between the parties on the delivery timelines and that respondent had at all times been prepared to effect delivery of the fuel to appellant.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:32px; 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">The court <i>a quo </i>erred in granting respondent positive relief on the basis of averments made in its plea.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:72.0pt"><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">The overarching issue commending itself for determination from the foregoing grounds is whether the appellant’s consignment of diesel was subject to additional duty under S.I 10 of 2019.  Also, whether there were any timelines for the delivery of the diesel and whether the court <i>a quo </i>erred by granting relief to the respondent.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:72.0pt"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:72.0pt"><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">Mr <i>Mpofu </i>for the appellant submitted that S.I 10 of 2019 was not applicable in the circumstances of this case, it having come into effect on 13 January 2019 and not having retrospective effect.  In counsel’s view, and for that reason, the directive to Oil Companies given by ZERA only applied to fuel that was still to be sold and not the fuel, like the 120 000 litres of diesel, that had already been sold.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:72.0pt"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:72.0pt"><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">The fuel that had already been sold could not be subjected to further taxation and did not carry such risk. Counsel submitted that the respondent had no business subjecting the appellant’s fuel to the directive issued by ZERA.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:72.0pt"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:72.0pt"><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">Regarding the applicability of s 230 (1) of the Customs and Excise Act, Mr <i>Mpofu </i>took the view that the section was not engaged.  There was no evidence, so it was argued, that the respondent had been requested to, and did pay, any additional duty as envisaged by s 230 (1).</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:72.0pt"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:72.0pt"><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">On repudiation, Mr <i>Mpofu </i>submitted that the court <i>a quo’s </i>findings were not supported by any evidence at all.  There was nothing in the conduct of the parties suggesting that delivery was to be made within 72 hours.  Neither was there evidence of any delivery timelines or any tender of delivery.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:72.0pt"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:72.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><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:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Per contra</span></span></span></i><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">, Mr <i>Ochieng </i>for the respondent contended that the appellant’s reference to S.I 10 of 2019 was not only a false premise, it was also irrelevant. This is because the additional duty was imposed by S.I 9 of 2019.  In counsel’s view, it was a fallacy that the directive by ZERA imposed a duty on fuel.  Counsel further contended that s 230 (1) constituted a term imposed by law which transferred liability to pay duty onto the appellant.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:72.0pt"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:72.0pt"><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">Finding it difficult to defend most of the findings made by the court <i>a quo </i>which appeared contradictory, counsel for the respondent submitted that the court <i>a quo </i>arrived at a correct conclusion on wrong reasons.  Given that a party does not appeal against the reasons for judgment, so it was argued, the respondent could not do anything about the situation.</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><u><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">WHETHER THE DIESEL WAS SUBJECT TO ADDITIONAL DUTY</span></span></span></u></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-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">                        On the evidence presented before the court <i>a quo</i>,<i> </i>including the manner in which the parties conducted themselves, the basis upon which the appellant should pay an additional duty was the directive given by ZERA as read with S.I 10 of 2019.</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-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">                        I mention here that the court <i>a quo </i>correctly found that the sale became <i>perfecta</i> at the beginning of November 2018.  In other words, the sale was completed before the Statutory Instrument came into effect.  The question which then arises is whether its application extended to the diesel, which for all intents and purposes, had been sold and belonged to the appellant.</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-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">                        I have already dealt with the two Statutory Instruments (S.I 9 and 10 of 2019), their introduction and purposes.  I have also stated that S.I 9 of 2019 expressly provided that it came into effect on 13 January 2019 and that it did not provide for retrospective 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"><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 statutory interpretation, there is a salutary presumption, as can be gleaned from s 20 (1) of the Interpretation Act [<i>Chapter 1:01</i>], that statutes are not to be construed retrospectively.  In fact, the general rule is that, in the absence of express provision to the contrary, statutes should be regarded as affecting future matters only.  They should, if possible, be so interpreted as not to take away rights actually vested at the time of their promulgation.  See <i>Curtis v Johannesburg Municipality</i> 1906 T.S 308 at 311.</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-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 above proposition has been hallowed by repetition over the years in this jurisdiction.  See <i>Nkomo &amp; Anor v Attorney General &amp; Ors</i> 1993 (2) ZLR 422 (S) at 429. <i>Greatermans Stores (1979) (Pvt) Ltd &amp; Anor v Minister of Public Service, Labour and Social Welfare &amp; Anor </i>2018 (1) ZLR 335 (CC) at 341.</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-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">                        I have no hesitation in concluding that the pricing regime introduced in January 2019, not having retrospective application, did not affect the diesel forming the basis of this dispute.  This is so because ownership of it had long passed to the appellant.</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-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 issue however does not end there because the respondent also placed reliance on s 230(1) of the Customs and Excise Act [<i>Chapter 23:02</i>] as bringing the diesel in question under the new pricing regime.  The section provides:</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-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">“230. <b>Seller under contract may recover any increase and purchaser may deduct any decrease of duty.</b></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"> </p> <ol><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-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Whenever any duty is imposed or increased on any goods and such goods, in pursuance of a contract made before the duty or increased duty becomes payable, are thereafter delivered to and accepted by the purchaser, the seller of the goods may, in the absence of agreement to the contrary, recover from the purchaser as an addition to the contract price a sum equal to any amount paid by him reason of the said duty or increase.”</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; text-indent:72.0pt"><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">This provision admits of no ambiguity.  It must be given its simple grammatical meaning.  In the context of the present case, it raises a number of juridical factors that must be established before its provisions are engaged.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:72.0pt"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:72.0pt"><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">First, there must be a contract entered into before duty was increased.  Second, duty must have been increased.  Third, the goods must have been delivered to and accepted by the purchaser after duty was increased.  Fourth, the seller must have paid the duty thereby entitling him or her to recover a sum equal to the amount so paid by reason of the increase.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:72.0pt"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:72.0pt"><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 light of the definition of “duty” in s 2 of the Act as “any duty leviable under this Act or any other law relating to customs and excise and includes surtax,” one wonders whether the Petroleum (Petroleum Pricing) Regulations, 2018 are a law relating to customs and excise. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:72.0pt"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:72.0pt"><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">They incorporate the component of duty in the pricing formula to be considered by ZERA.  The regulations merely ensure just prices of petroleum products and do not levy a duty.  It is the Customs and Excise (Tariff) (Amendment) Notice (No 7), 2019 however, which is a law relating to customs and excise.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:72.0pt"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:72.0pt"><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">This issue was not canvassed with counsel in argument.  Accordingly it will not be engaged any further in the resolution of this appeal.  Let it suffice to say though that the requirements for the application of s 230 (1) have not been met in this case.  In that regard, I agree with Mr <i>Mpofu </i>that the prerequisite juridical facts required for the section to be engaged are patently absent.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:72.0pt"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:72.0pt"><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">The respondent did not lead any evidence showing that it paid any additional duty.  In the absence of proof of payment of additional duty, among other things, s 230 (1) could not be triggered.  This is so because it is intended for a seller who has paid additional duty subsequent to the fixing of the contract price to recover it from the purchaser.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:72.0pt"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:72.0pt"><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">That the court <i>a quo </i>found delivery as having occurred by <i>constitutum possessorium</i> at the beginning of November 2018, which finding was not contested, was not helpful to the respondent’s cause.  If that is so, delivery occurred before the increase in duty which increase could not affect the transaction within the contemplation of s 230 (1).</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:72.0pt"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:72.0pt"><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 follows that the consignment of 120 000 litres of diesel was not subject to additional duty.  The respondent could not recover any from the appellant.</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><u><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">WHETHER THERE WERE ANY TIMELINES FOR DELIVERY</span></span></span></u></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-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 court <i>a quo </i>agreed with the respondent that the contract provided for delivery of fuel within 72 hours of payment.  It is difficult to appreciate how such a finding could have been made from the evidence placed before the court.  I need do no more than point to the fact that, not only was there no reference in the correspondence between the parties to that timeline, there was also a stubborn fact staring the court <i>a quo </i>in the face.</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-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 is that the only delivery made by the respondent was of 30 000 litres of diesel.  This delivery was effected on 28 November 2018 without demur, some 26 days after payment. Clearly there was no evidence pointing to any timelines in delivery.  The court <i>a quo </i>appears to have read into the contract a non-existent term.</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-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 is not open to the courts to rewrite a contract for the parties.  Neither is it permissible to read into the parties’ contract some implied or tacit term that is in direct conflict with the express terms.  See <i>Magodora &amp; Ors v Care International Zimbabwe</i> 2014 (1) ZLR 397 (S) at 403C.</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-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">                        From the contents of the emails between the parties and the conduct of delivering the first consignment of 30 000 litres 26 days after the contract became “<i>perfecta</i>”, it is clear that the parties never set any timelines for delivery.  The court <i>a quo </i>was clearly wrong in its assessment.  The importation of a non-existent term into the parties’ contract was a gross misdirection.</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><u><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">WHETHER THE COURT <i>A QUO</i> ERRED IN GRANTING POSITIVE RELIEF TO THE RESPONDENT ON THE BASIS OF ITS PLEA.</span></span></span></u></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-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 is curious that the court <i>a quo </i>granted an order in favour of the respondent cancelling the sale and directing the respondent to refund the balance of the purchase price.  That relief was granted on the strength of a plea and nothing more.  The respondent had not filed a counter-claim.</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-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 point is made in <i>Indium Investments (Pvt) Ltd v Kingshaven (Pvt) Ltd &amp; Anor</i> 2015 (2) ZLR 40 (S) at 44 F that:</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-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">“A plea is a defence and as such can be likened to a shield. It is not a weapon or a sword. No relief can attach to a party through a plea.”</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; 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"><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">                        Unfortunately that is precisely what the court <i>a quo </i>granted in this case.  However just the court <i>a quo </i>may have considered the respondent’s tender of the sum of $159 300.00 to be, it was plainly incompetent for it to ratify it through an unsolicited court order. Doing so was a gross misdirection.  </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><u><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></u></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-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 court <i>a quo </i>made quite a number of errors and grossly erroneous findings of fact which cut against the grain of evidence.  On appeal this Court is entitled to interfere with those findings.  See <i>Barros &amp; Anor v Chimphonda</i> 1999 (1) ZLR 58 (S). </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-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 Statutory Instrument and the ZERA directive did not apply to the fuel that had already been purchased by the appellant from the respondent.  Section 230 (1) of the Customs and Excise Act did not come into effect in respect of the fuel in dispute. Finally, there were no timelines for delivery agreed upon by the parties.  As such the appellant was still entitled to delivery of the balance of the fuel.</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-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 appeal has merit.  It ought to be allowed. Regarding costs, they normally follow the result.  It has not been suggested, and I see no reason why the costs should not be awarded in favour of the successful party.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-left:48px; 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-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 the result, it is ordered as follows:</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: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">The appeal is allowed 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: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">The judgment of the court <i>a quo </i>is set aside and substituted with the following:</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:138px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-31.5pt"><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">“(i)   Judgment is entered for the plaintiff for the delivery by the defendant of 120 000 litres of diesel within 7 days of this order.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:96px; 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">(ii)   The defendant shall bear the costs of suit.”</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"><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">                        <b>UCHENA JA</b>             :             I agree</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"><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">                        <b>KUDYA JA</b>                :              I agree</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-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">Maweresibanda Commercial Lawyers</span></span></span></i><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">, appellant’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-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">Kevin J Anott</span></span></span></i><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">, 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-2e1a6e59489214f1c10524a92f18710812047a2ca0170492533144ea87a45264"> <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">Judgment No. SC 50/22</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">Civil Appeal No. SC 79/21</span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><u><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">REPORTABLE  (40)</span></span></span></u></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-bottom:11px"> </p> <p align="center" style="text-align:center"> </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-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">LONRHO     LOGISTICS     (PRIVATE)     LIMITED</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-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><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-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">RAM     PETROLEUM     (PRIVATE)     LIMITED</span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-bottom:11px"> </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-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">SUPREME 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-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">UCHENA JA, MATHONSI JA &amp; KUDYA JA</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-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">HARARE, 8 MARCH 2022 &amp; 12 MAY 2022</span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </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-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">Mr <i>T Mpofu</i>, for the appellant</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"><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">Mr <i>D Ochieng</i>, for the respondent</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:72.0pt"><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">MATHONSI JA</span></span></span></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">:       Dismayed by the respondent’s outright refusal to deliver to it outstanding fuel in terms of an agreement of sale entered into between the parties, the appellant filed a claim for specific performance in the High Court (“the court <i>a</i> <i>quo</i>”).  The appellant sought judgment compelling the respondent to deliver 120 000 litres of diesel purchased from the respondent.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:72.0pt"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:72.0pt"><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">By judgment delivered on 31 March 2021, the court <i>a quo </i>dismissed the claim and issued the following order:</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"><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">            “Accordingly, I order as follows:</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: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">The plaintiff’s claim is dismissed.</span></span></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-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The contract entered into between the parties whereby the plaintiff purchased 150 000 lrs of fuel from the defendant be and is hereby cancelled.</span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:72px; text-align:justify"> </p> <ol start="3"><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-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The defendant be and is hereby is (sic) ordered to pay the plaintiff the sum of $159 300.00 representing the plaintiff’s partial performance of the contract.</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: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 plaintiff be and is hereby ordered to pay the defendant’s costs of suit.”</span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:48px"> </p> <p style="margin-left:72px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:72.0pt"><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">This is an appeal against that whole judgment of the court <i>a quo</i>.  </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"><b><u><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 FACTS</span></span></span></u></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>                        </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">The background facts are largely common cause.  The appellant is a transporter of note while the respondent is a fuel monger. They have a long standing business relationship whereby the respondent has been supplying the appellant with bulk fuel over the years.  On 1 November 2018, the parties entered into a sale agreement in terms of which the respondent sold and the appellant purchased 150 000 litres of diesel.</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-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">                        On 2 November 2018 the appellant paid the purchase price of $201 000 in terms of the invoice presented to it by the respondent but did not take delivery of the diesel in question.  In fact, it was not until 28 November 2018 that the respondent delivered only 30 000 litres of the diesel on the instructions of the appellant.  This left a balance of 120 000 litres of diesel which is the subject of the present litigation involving the parties.</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-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">                        Problems started in January 2019 when three events occurred in quick succession. First, the Minister of Finance and Economic Development gazetted the Customs and Excise (Tariff) (Amendment) Notice, (No. 7, 2019) as S.I 9 of 2019.  The Statutory Instrument came into operation on 13 January 2019.  It was enacted to amend Part II of the Second Schedule of the Customs and Excise (Tariff) Notice, 2017 which was published in Statutory Instrument 53 of 2017.</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-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">                        Second, and subsequently to that, the Petroleum (Petroleum Products Pricing) Regulations S.I 10 of 2019 were gazetted.  Section 3 thereof made it clear that they applied to “petroleum products prices in relation to wholesaling and retailing activities.”  Section 5 provided the formulas that were to be applied by the Zimbabwe Energy Regulatory Authority (“ZERA”) in calculating the price of any petroleum product.</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-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 is significant to note that the amount of duty imposed by S.I 10 of 2019 appears to have been equivalent to the amount fixed by S.I 9 of 2019, which, as I have stated, specifically stated that it came into operation on 13 January 2019 without in any way suggesting that it had retrospective effect.</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-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">                        Third, and obviously in response to the imperatives of the Statutory Instruments referred to above, the ZERA issued a directive requiring all oil companies to declare their fuel stocks as of midnight on 12 January 2019.  The directive was contained in a circular dated 17 January 2019 which reads in relevant part: </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-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">“<u>RE: DECLARATION OF OIL COMPANY FUEL STOCKS AS OF MIDNIGHT 12<sup>TH</sup> JANUARY 2019</u> </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></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-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Pursuant to the meeting held at the Ministry of Finance on the 16<sup>th</sup> January 2019 between Ministry of Energy and Power Development, Ministry of Finance, Zimbabwe Energy Regulatory Authority and Oil Companies, the authority requires that Oil Companies declare the details of the following:-</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"> </p> <ol><li style="margin-left:56px; text-align:justify" value="0"><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">Stockholding of diesel, petrol and paraffin held by the Oil Company at depot or at NOIC (old duty paid) as of midnight 12<sup>th</sup> January 2019 before the new pricing (Statutory Instrument 10 of 2019) came into effect.</span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify"> </p> <ol><li style="margin-left:56px; text-align:justify" value="0"><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">Outstanding coupons (yet to be redeemed) as of midnight 12<sup>th</sup> January 2019, indicating products category of customers, volumes and value as well as special conditions attaching to coupons.</span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-left:54px; 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-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Oil Companies are further advised that they are required to pay the difference in duty between the old duty and new duty to ZIMRA on the stock referred to in 1.0 as the fuel will be sold in terms of S.I 10 of 2019</span></span></u><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">.” (The underlining is for emphasis)</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></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-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">                        Following these developments the appellant moved quickly.  On 24 January 2019, it demanded the immediate delivery of the balance of 120 000 litres of diesel.  The respondent was unmoved.  Citing an increase in duty, the respondent refused to deliver until the appellant paid additional duty on the outstanding diesel.</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-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">                        By email of 24 January 2019 the respondent tabled three options available to the appellant. The respondent wrote:</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"><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">            “… we wish to provide you with below three options.</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: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">Lonrho pay the difference of duty amounting to $1.65.</span></span></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-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Lonrho can draw down at the current price of fuel to exhaust your prepayment with us.</span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:72px; text-align:justify"> </p> <ol start="3"><li style="margin-left:32px; 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">RAM Petroleum can refund Lonrho the total amount prepaid.” </span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:72.0pt"><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">The appellant would have none of it.  Calling the respondent’s proposal “nonsense”, it emotionally put its case across that the ZERA directive did not apply to the diesel that had already been sold.  With the battle lines drawn, the appellant enlisted the services of its legal practitioners whose letter of demand to the respondent yielded nothing.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:72.0pt"> </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-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">PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT <i>A QUO</i></span></span></span></u></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-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">                        On 7 February 2019 the appellant sued out a summons against the respondent seeking an order directing the respondent to deliver the outstanding diesel.  The claim was contested by the respondent.  In a long winding plea characterized by a number of alternative averments, the respondent pleaded the existence of a tacit term of the agreement that the appellant should have taken delivery within seventy two hours after effecting payment.</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-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 addition, it asserted that s 230 (1) of the Customs and Excise Act [<i>Chapter 23:02</i>] constituted an implied term that it was entitled to recover from the appellant any amount by which duty was increased.  Some of the pleas raised by the respondent related to fictional fulfilment of the contract in the sense that it had tendered delivery of the diesel which the appellant refused. Also, that by failing to accept delivery, the appellant had repudiated the contract thereby entitling the respondent to cancel it and tender the sum of $159 300.00 being the difference.</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-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">                        Following a full trial, the court <i>a quo</i> found that the contract became <i>perfecta </i>when the parties agreed on the thing sold (the <i>merx</i>), the price (<i><u>pretium</u></i>) and showed they had the requisite <i>animus </i>to contract.  It was the court <i>a quo’s </i>finding that the contract was perfected when the respondent accepted the payment for the 150 000 litres of diesel.</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-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">                        Regarding transfer of ownership of the diesel, the court <i>a quo </i>remarked:</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-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">“It is evident to me that in the present matter, transfer of ownership of the fuel in question happened by way of <i>constitutum possessorium </i> without actual delivery of the thing and by means of a mere change in the parties’ intention regarding <i>animus domini</i>.  The change in <i>animus </i>in this matter repeatedly took place each time the plaintiff paid for the fuel and the defendant accepted payment for the fuel. By that exchange, the plaintiff acquired ownership in the fuel, when looking at the facts in the present matter means that ownership of the 150 000 litres transferred to the plaintiff in early November 2018.”</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:72.0pt"><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">Notwithstanding those findings, the court <i>a quo </i>went on to find that the burden for paying for the increase in duty passed to the appellant. Further, it found that by failing to accept delivery, the appellant repudiated the contract of sale.  In disposing of the matter, other than dismissing the appellant’s claim, the court <i>a quo </i>also granted positive relief to the respondent, namely the cancellation of the contract and the return of the purchase price paid by the appellant.</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><u><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">PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THIS COURT</span></span></span></u></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-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 appellant remained aggrieved.  It noted this appeal on the following grounds of appeal.</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: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">Having come to the conclusion that the contract between the parties had become <i>perfecta </i>and ownership passed to the appellant, the court <i>a quo </i>erred in not concluding that provisions of Statutory Instrument 10 of 2019 were, on the circumstances of the matter, not engaged in that:</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><ol style="list-style-type:lower-alpha"><li style="margin-left:104px; 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">The duty chargeable under and in terms of that Statutory Instrument was not meant to and did not affect transactions that had already been concluded.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:104px; 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">Respondent did not place before the court any evidence tending to show that it had been required to and had in fact paid additional duties on fuel already purchased by appellant.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><ol start="2"><li style="margin-left:32px; 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">The court <i>a quo </i>erred at any rate in concluding that the increase of duty on future sales was a risk which appellant was required to bear by operation of law.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:32px; 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">Consequently, the court <i>a quo </i>erred in not finding that respondent had breached the agreement between the parties by reason of its failure to deliver diesel that had been purchased by appellant.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:32px; 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">The court <i>a quo </i> seriously misdirected itself on the facts, such misdirection amounting to an error in law in not finding at any rate, that there was no agreement between the parties on the delivery timelines and that respondent had at all times been prepared to effect delivery of the fuel to appellant.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:32px; 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">The court <i>a quo </i>erred in granting respondent positive relief on the basis of averments made in its plea.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:72.0pt"><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">The overarching issue commending itself for determination from the foregoing grounds is whether the appellant’s consignment of diesel was subject to additional duty under S.I 10 of 2019.  Also, whether there were any timelines for the delivery of the diesel and whether the court <i>a quo </i>erred by granting relief to the respondent.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:72.0pt"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:72.0pt"><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">Mr <i>Mpofu </i>for the appellant submitted that S.I 10 of 2019 was not applicable in the circumstances of this case, it having come into effect on 13 January 2019 and not having retrospective effect.  In counsel’s view, and for that reason, the directive to Oil Companies given by ZERA only applied to fuel that was still to be sold and not the fuel, like the 120 000 litres of diesel, that had already been sold.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:72.0pt"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:72.0pt"><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">The fuel that had already been sold could not be subjected to further taxation and did not carry such risk. Counsel submitted that the respondent had no business subjecting the appellant’s fuel to the directive issued by ZERA.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:72.0pt"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:72.0pt"><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">Regarding the applicability of s 230 (1) of the Customs and Excise Act, Mr <i>Mpofu </i>took the view that the section was not engaged.  There was no evidence, so it was argued, that the respondent had been requested to, and did pay, any additional duty as envisaged by s 230 (1).</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:72.0pt"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:72.0pt"><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">On repudiation, Mr <i>Mpofu </i>submitted that the court <i>a quo’s </i>findings were not supported by any evidence at all.  There was nothing in the conduct of the parties suggesting that delivery was to be made within 72 hours.  Neither was there evidence of any delivery timelines or any tender of delivery.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:72.0pt"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:72.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><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:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Per contra</span></span></span></i><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">, Mr <i>Ochieng </i>for the respondent contended that the appellant’s reference to S.I 10 of 2019 was not only a false premise, it was also irrelevant. This is because the additional duty was imposed by S.I 9 of 2019.  In counsel’s view, it was a fallacy that the directive by ZERA imposed a duty on fuel.  Counsel further contended that s 230 (1) constituted a term imposed by law which transferred liability to pay duty onto the appellant.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:72.0pt"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:72.0pt"><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">Finding it difficult to defend most of the findings made by the court <i>a quo </i>which appeared contradictory, counsel for the respondent submitted that the court <i>a quo </i>arrived at a correct conclusion on wrong reasons.  Given that a party does not appeal against the reasons for judgment, so it was argued, the respondent could not do anything about the situation.</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><u><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">WHETHER THE DIESEL WAS SUBJECT TO ADDITIONAL DUTY</span></span></span></u></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-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">                        On the evidence presented before the court <i>a quo</i>,<i> </i>including the manner in which the parties conducted themselves, the basis upon which the appellant should pay an additional duty was the directive given by ZERA as read with S.I 10 of 2019.</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-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">                        I mention here that the court <i>a quo </i>correctly found that the sale became <i>perfecta</i> at the beginning of November 2018.  In other words, the sale was completed before the Statutory Instrument came into effect.  The question which then arises is whether its application extended to the diesel, which for all intents and purposes, had been sold and belonged to the appellant.</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-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">                        I have already dealt with the two Statutory Instruments (S.I 9 and 10 of 2019), their introduction and purposes.  I have also stated that S.I 9 of 2019 expressly provided that it came into effect on 13 January 2019 and that it did not provide for retrospective 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"><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 statutory interpretation, there is a salutary presumption, as can be gleaned from s 20 (1) of the Interpretation Act [<i>Chapter 1:01</i>], that statutes are not to be construed retrospectively.  In fact, the general rule is that, in the absence of express provision to the contrary, statutes should be regarded as affecting future matters only.  They should, if possible, be so interpreted as not to take away rights actually vested at the time of their promulgation.  See <i>Curtis v Johannesburg Municipality</i> 1906 T.S 308 at 311.</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-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 above proposition has been hallowed by repetition over the years in this jurisdiction.  See <i>Nkomo &amp; Anor v Attorney General &amp; Ors</i> 1993 (2) ZLR 422 (S) at 429. <i>Greatermans Stores (1979) (Pvt) Ltd &amp; Anor v Minister of Public Service, Labour and Social Welfare &amp; Anor </i>2018 (1) ZLR 335 (CC) at 341.</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-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">                        I have no hesitation in concluding that the pricing regime introduced in January 2019, not having retrospective application, did not affect the diesel forming the basis of this dispute.  This is so because ownership of it had long passed to the appellant.</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-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 issue however does not end there because the respondent also placed reliance on s 230(1) of the Customs and Excise Act [<i>Chapter 23:02</i>] as bringing the diesel in question under the new pricing regime.  The section provides:</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-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">“230. <b>Seller under contract may recover any increase and purchaser may deduct any decrease of duty.</b></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"> </p> <ol><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-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Whenever any duty is imposed or increased on any goods and such goods, in pursuance of a contract made before the duty or increased duty becomes payable, are thereafter delivered to and accepted by the purchaser, the seller of the goods may, in the absence of agreement to the contrary, recover from the purchaser as an addition to the contract price a sum equal to any amount paid by him reason of the said duty or increase.”</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; text-indent:72.0pt"><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">This provision admits of no ambiguity.  It must be given its simple grammatical meaning.  In the context of the present case, it raises a number of juridical factors that must be established before its provisions are engaged.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:72.0pt"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:72.0pt"><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">First, there must be a contract entered into before duty was increased.  Second, duty must have been increased.  Third, the goods must have been delivered to and accepted by the purchaser after duty was increased.  Fourth, the seller must have paid the duty thereby entitling him or her to recover a sum equal to the amount so paid by reason of the increase.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:72.0pt"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:72.0pt"><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 light of the definition of “duty” in s 2 of the Act as “any duty leviable under this Act or any other law relating to customs and excise and includes surtax,” one wonders whether the Petroleum (Petroleum Pricing) Regulations, 2018 are a law relating to customs and excise. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:72.0pt"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:72.0pt"><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">They incorporate the component of duty in the pricing formula to be considered by ZERA.  The regulations merely ensure just prices of petroleum products and do not levy a duty.  It is the Customs and Excise (Tariff) (Amendment) Notice (No 7), 2019 however, which is a law relating to customs and excise.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:72.0pt"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:72.0pt"><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">This issue was not canvassed with counsel in argument.  Accordingly it will not be engaged any further in the resolution of this appeal.  Let it suffice to say though that the requirements for the application of s 230 (1) have not been met in this case.  In that regard, I agree with Mr <i>Mpofu </i>that the prerequisite juridical facts required for the section to be engaged are patently absent.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:72.0pt"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:72.0pt"><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">The respondent did not lead any evidence showing that it paid any additional duty.  In the absence of proof of payment of additional duty, among other things, s 230 (1) could not be triggered.  This is so because it is intended for a seller who has paid additional duty subsequent to the fixing of the contract price to recover it from the purchaser.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:72.0pt"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:72.0pt"><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">That the court <i>a quo </i>found delivery as having occurred by <i>constitutum possessorium</i> at the beginning of November 2018, which finding was not contested, was not helpful to the respondent’s cause.  If that is so, delivery occurred before the increase in duty which increase could not affect the transaction within the contemplation of s 230 (1).</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:72.0pt"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:72.0pt"><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 follows that the consignment of 120 000 litres of diesel was not subject to additional duty.  The respondent could not recover any from the appellant.</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><u><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">WHETHER THERE WERE ANY TIMELINES FOR DELIVERY</span></span></span></u></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-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 court <i>a quo </i>agreed with the respondent that the contract provided for delivery of fuel within 72 hours of payment.  It is difficult to appreciate how such a finding could have been made from the evidence placed before the court.  I need do no more than point to the fact that, not only was there no reference in the correspondence between the parties to that timeline, there was also a stubborn fact staring the court <i>a quo </i>in the face.</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-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 is that the only delivery made by the respondent was of 30 000 litres of diesel.  This delivery was effected on 28 November 2018 without demur, some 26 days after payment. Clearly there was no evidence pointing to any timelines in delivery.  The court <i>a quo </i>appears to have read into the contract a non-existent term.</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-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 is not open to the courts to rewrite a contract for the parties.  Neither is it permissible to read into the parties’ contract some implied or tacit term that is in direct conflict with the express terms.  See <i>Magodora &amp; Ors v Care International Zimbabwe</i> 2014 (1) ZLR 397 (S) at 403C.</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-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">                        From the contents of the emails between the parties and the conduct of delivering the first consignment of 30 000 litres 26 days after the contract became “<i>perfecta</i>”, it is clear that the parties never set any timelines for delivery.  The court <i>a quo </i>was clearly wrong in its assessment.  The importation of a non-existent term into the parties’ contract was a gross misdirection.</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><u><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">WHETHER THE COURT <i>A QUO</i> ERRED IN GRANTING POSITIVE RELIEF TO THE RESPONDENT ON THE BASIS OF ITS PLEA.</span></span></span></u></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-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 is curious that the court <i>a quo </i>granted an order in favour of the respondent cancelling the sale and directing the respondent to refund the balance of the purchase price.  That relief was granted on the strength of a plea and nothing more.  The respondent had not filed a counter-claim.</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-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 point is made in <i>Indium Investments (Pvt) Ltd v Kingshaven (Pvt) Ltd &amp; Anor</i> 2015 (2) ZLR 40 (S) at 44 F that:</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-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">“A plea is a defence and as such can be likened to a shield. It is not a weapon or a sword. No relief can attach to a party through a plea.”</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; 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"><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">                        Unfortunately that is precisely what the court <i>a quo </i>granted in this case.  However just the court <i>a quo </i>may have considered the respondent’s tender of the sum of $159 300.00 to be, it was plainly incompetent for it to ratify it through an unsolicited court order. Doing so was a gross misdirection.  </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><u><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></u></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-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 court <i>a quo </i>made quite a number of errors and grossly erroneous findings of fact which cut against the grain of evidence.  On appeal this Court is entitled to interfere with those findings.  See <i>Barros &amp; Anor v Chimphonda</i> 1999 (1) ZLR 58 (S). </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-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 Statutory Instrument and the ZERA directive did not apply to the fuel that had already been purchased by the appellant from the respondent.  Section 230 (1) of the Customs and Excise Act did not come into effect in respect of the fuel in dispute. Finally, there were no timelines for delivery agreed upon by the parties.  As such the appellant was still entitled to delivery of the balance of the fuel.</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-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 appeal has merit.  It ought to be allowed. Regarding costs, they normally follow the result.  It has not been suggested, and I see no reason why the costs should not be awarded in favour of the successful party.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-left:48px; 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-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 the result, it is ordered as follows:</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: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">The appeal is allowed 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: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">The judgment of the court <i>a quo </i>is set aside and substituted with the following:</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:138px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-31.5pt"><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">“(i)   Judgment is entered for the plaintiff for the delivery by the defendant of 120 000 litres of diesel within 7 days of this order.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:96px; 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">(ii)   The defendant shall bear the costs of suit.”</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"><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">                        <b>UCHENA JA</b>             :             I agree</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"><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">                        <b>KUDYA JA</b>                :              I agree</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-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">Maweresibanda Commercial Lawyers</span></span></span></i><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">, appellant’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-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">Kevin J Anott</span></span></span></i><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">, respondent’s legal practitioners</span></span></span></span></span></span></p></span></div></div> </div> </div> Wed, 18 May 2022 09:14:21 +0000 Sandra Muengwa 12491 at http://zimlii.org Rodgers v Chiutsi and 5 Others (25 of 2022) [2022] ZWSC 25 (15 February 2022); http://zimlii.org/zw/judgment/supreme-court-zimbabwe/2022/25 <span class="field field--name-title field--type-string field--label-hidden">Rodgers v Chiutsi and 5 Others (25 of 2022) [2022] ZWSC 25 (15 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/2083" hreflang="x-default">APPEAL</a></div> <div class="field__item"><a href="/taxonomy/term/2177" hreflang="x-default">Conduct and ethics (LEGAL PRACTITIONER)</a></div> <div class="field__item"><a href="/taxonomy/term/1883" hreflang="en">Interim/Provisional measures</a></div> <div class="field__item"><a href="/taxonomy/term/2176" hreflang="x-default">LEGAL PRACTITIONER</a></div> <div class="field__item"><a href="/taxonomy/term/1997" hreflang="en">Behaviour of Legal Practitioner</a></div> <div class="field__item"><a href="/taxonomy/term/2178" hreflang="x-default">Trust account</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, 04/11/2022 - 10:21</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/2022/25/2022-zwsc-25.docx" type="application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document; length=47359">2022-zwsc-25.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/2022/25/2022-zwsc-25.pdf" type="application/pdf; length=604422">2022-zwsc-25.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-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Judgment No. SC 25 /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-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Civil Appeal  SC 140/19</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-bottom:11px"> </p> <p style="margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><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:150%"><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:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">       (21)</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p align="center" style="text-align:center"> </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">ELLIOT     RODGERS</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)     PUWAYI     CHIUTSI     (2)     TENDAYI     MASHAMHANDA      (3)     REGISTRAR     OF     DEEDS               (4)     SHERIFF     OF     ZIMBABWE     (5)     BARIADE     INVESTMENTS     (PRIVATE)     LIMITED     (6)     LAW     SOCIETY     OF ZIMBABWE</span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt; margin-bottom:11px"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"> </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">SUPREME 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">GWAUNZA DCJ, GUVAVA JA &amp; BHUNU JA </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">HARARE, 16 &amp; 17 SEPTEMBER 2021 &amp; 15 FEBRUARY  2022</span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"> </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">Ms C Damiso, for the appellant </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"><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 Mubaiwa, for the first respondent</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"><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 Magwaliba, for the second respondent</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"><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">Adv T. Mpofu, </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 fifth respondent</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"><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">No </span></span></span><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">appearance for the sixth respondent</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"> </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"><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">GWAUNZA DCJ</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt; 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">[1]        This is an appeal against the whole judgment of the High Court handed down on 14 March 2019, in which the court <i>a quo </i>dismissed the appellant’s application for interim relief. The appeal was heard together with that in SC 09/20 which involved the same parties, centered around the same dispute and effectively sought the same relief that the appellant seeks <i>in casu</i>. However, separate judgments for the two appeals have been issued.<b> </b>The sixth respondent, having applied for the de-registration of the first respondent as a legal practitioner, indicated it would abide by 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: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> <p style="margin-left:48px; 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">[2]</span></span></span><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">In 2012 the appellant in this matter sold his house at No.30 Arundel School Road, with the conveyancing was done by the first respondent (a legal practitioner). From a series of actions and applications brought before the courts, it was accepted that the first respondent misappropriated some of the proceeds from the sale of the immovable property. Consequently, the appellant successfully instituted legal proceedings against the first respondent and obtained a judgment against him in 2015. Despite a multiplicity of legal proceedings at the instance of the first respondent, the appellant managed to place a <i>caveat</i> on the latter’s immovable property, being a certain piece of land situate in the district of Salisbury called the remainder of subdivision C of Lot 6 of Lot 190, 191, 192, 193, 194 and 195 Highlands estate of Welmoed measuring 4377 square metres, under Deed of Transfer No. 8421/2000.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt"> </p> <p style="margin-left:48px; 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">[3]        Pursuant to this, the Sheriff successfully sold the first respondent’s property in execution, to the fifth respondent. The first respondent in a number of applications challenged the sale in execution which the Sheriff, nevertheless, eventually confirmed. The High Court as well as this Court further upheld the confirmation of the sale. Despite these numerous judgments and the <i>caveat</i> placed upon his property, the first respondent managed to transfer the same property to the second respondent on 8 February 2019. The appellant in his founding affidavit <i>a quo</i> averred that such transfer could only have been made possible through some fraudulent conduct on the part of the first respondent in connivance with the Registrar of Deeds.</span></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:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"> </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: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">[4]        Subsequently, the appellant filed an urgent application before the court <i>a quo</i> seeking a provisional order in the following terms: - </span></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: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">“<u>Terms of final order sought</u></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:72px; 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">It is ordered that:</span></span></span></span></span></p> <ol><li style="margin-left:80px; 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">Puwayi Chiutsi be and is hereby struck off from the roll of legal practitioners.</span></span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:80px; 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">Puwayi Chiutsi and the Sheriff of Zimbabwe each paying the other to be absolved, pays costs of suit on a scale as between attorney and client.</span></span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:80px; 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 applicant’s legal practitioners be and is hereby given leave to serve the copy of this order to the Registrar of Deeds.</span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:120px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-left:72px; text-align:justify; text-indent:18.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><u><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Terms of Interim Order Sought</span></span></u></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:96px; 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">Pending the final determination of this matter, at the return date, the applicant is granted the following relief;</span></span></span></span></span></p> <ol style="list-style-type:lower-roman"><li style="margin-left:80px; 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">That Deed of Transfer No. 708/19, issued in the name of Tendai Mashamhanda in respect of a piece of land in the district of Salisbury called the remainder of subdivision C of Lot 6 of Lot 190, 191, 192, 193, 194 and 195 Highlands estate of Welmoed measuring 4377 square metres be and is hereby cancelled.</span></span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:80px; 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">That forthwith the Law Society of Zimbabwe, must place the law firm of Puwayi Chiutsi under curatorship in terms of the Legal Practitioner’s Act.</span></span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:80px; 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">Puwayi Chiutsi be and is hereby suspended from the practise of the legal profession.<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-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">[1]</span></span></span></span></span></a>”</span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><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; 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">[5]        On 28 February 2019 the court <i>a quo</i> found that the application was not urgent in as far as it related to the relief sought to compel the Law Society of Zimbabwe to place the first respondent’s law firm under curatorship and, also, his suspension from practice as a legal practitioner. On 1 March 2019, the court <i>a quo</i> proceeded to hear the rest of the application on the merits. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt"> </p> <p style="margin-left:48px; 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">[6]        The court <i>a quo</i> found that the interim relief sought by the appellant in respect of the cancellation of Deed of Transfer No. 708/19 would in fact be a final order. The court brought this issue to the attention of the parties. It was submitted on behalf of the second respondent that he was ready to accept an interim interdict to stop any transfer of the property pending determination on the return date. However, the appellant did not move for any relief in the alternative and chose to stand or fall on the final relief being sought.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt"> </p> <p style="margin-left:48px; 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">[7]        Consequently, the court <i>a quo</i> held that it was improper to seek final relief on the basis of submissions supporting the grant of an interim order.  The court noted, correctly, that such a circumstance would leave nothing for the court to confirm or discharge on the return date. It also expressed the view that the appellant’s interests could have been secured by a temporary interdict prohibiting any transfer of property by the second respondent pending the return date. However, the court took the view that it could not grant such an order as it had not been prayed for, and accordingly, dismissed the application.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt"> </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">Aggrieved by this decision, the appellant noted the present appeal on the following grounds: - </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <ol><li style="margin-left:80px; 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 court <i>a quo</i> grossly erred, holding that there was no urgency in the application in so far as it related to the suspension of <i>Puwayi Chiutsi</i> the first respondent from practicing as a legal practitioner.</span></span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:80px; 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 court <i>a quo</i> grossly erred in not understanding and holding that the court, as well as the appellant, had the duty to ensure the protection of the public and indeed the legal protection against errant lawyer (sic) whose damage to the public and to the legal profession was immense.</span></span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:80px; 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 court <i>a quo</i> grossly erred, in failing to grant the provisional order sought in terms of the chamber application filed by the appellant.</span></span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:80px; 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">Further as a question of law, the court <i>a quo</i> erred in not finding that in the circumstances of this case, the appellant had shown the legal basis for the granting of the order that was sought whether or not it could be classified as final. </span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:120px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"> </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">In addition to an order that the appeal be allowed with costs, the appellant seeks an order that the judgment of the High Court be set aside and substituted with an order granting the relief that he originally sought <i>a quo</i>. This is notwithstanding the fact that he had amended his draft order to leave out the parts of the relief that the court had ruled not to be urgent.  </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: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">ISSUE FOR DETERMINATION</span></span></span></b></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: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">[8]</span></span></span><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">Notwithstanding the fact that the appellant has four grounds of appeal as outlined, the only issue that arises for determination in this matter is contained in the appellant’s third and fourth grounds of appeal, that is, whether or not the court <i>a quo</i> erred in dismissing the application for what was in fact a final order disguised as provisional order. The court finds the other two grounds of appeal to be both misplaced and without merit. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt"> </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-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">[9]        As already indicated, the court <i>a quo</i> ruled not to be urgent, two aspects of the      appellant’s application<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-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">[2]</span></span></span></span></span></a>. These pertained to the order seeking to compel the Law          Society of Zimbabwe to place the law firm of <i>Puwayi Chiutsi</i> under       curatorship, and the order seeking the suspension of <i>Puwayi Chiutsi </i>from practising as    a legal practitioner. The court then proceeded to hear the rest of the application on the             merits, as outlined thus in its judgment: -</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:96px; 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">“I proceeded to hear the merits of the application on 1 March 2019. The first respondent was in default. Before commencement of submissions, I drew <i>Mr Biti</i>’s attention to the fact that the interim relief sought was in fact a final order i.e. the prayer for cancellation of Deed of Transfer No. 708/19 issued in the name of the second respondent. <i>Mr Biti</i> said he was aware of that and was going to seek the order in that form. <b>He applied for the amendment of the Provisional Order by removal of that part of the prayer for which the court had ruled could(<i>sic</i>)not proceed on urgency. <u>He also sought the removal of all such similar relief from the final order sought and that the final order sought should only contain the issue of costs</u></b>. This was so, I believe, because the interim relief sought a final order.” (my emphasis)</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:23px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-17.85pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">                        </span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:24px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-18.0pt"><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">[10]      The import of these remarks is that the appellant abandoned, for purposes of the    proceedings <i>a quo</i>, paras 1 and 3 of the final relief sought, leaving only para 2,        which pertained to the prayer for costs against the first and fourth respondents. Further,            that in so far as the ‘Interim Relief’ sought was concerned, the appellant abandoned the last two paragraphs. That left only the first paragraph, pertaining to the cancellation of        the Deed of Transfer No 708/19, issued in the name of <i>Tendai Mashamhanda</i>, the             second respondent. Thus, the appellant’s amended draft order <i>a quo</i> would have read       something like this: - </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:24px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-18.0pt"><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">                        <b>Terms of the Final Order Sought</b></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"><b><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">It is ordered that:</span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-54.0pt"><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">                  Puwayi Chiutsi and the Sheriff of Zimbabwe each paying the other to be absolved, pays costs of suit on a scale as between attorney and client.</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:72px; text-align:justify; text-indent:18.0pt"><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">Terms of Interim Order Sought</span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:96px; 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">Pending the final determination of this matter, at the return date, the applicant is granted the following relief;</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:96px; 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">That Deed of Transfer No. 708/19, issued in the name of Tendai Mashamhanda in respect of a piece of land in the district of Salisbury called the remainder of subdivision C of Lot 6 of Lot 190, 191, 192, 193, 194 and 195 Highlands estate of Welmoed measuring 4377 square metres be and is hereby cancelled.</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:23px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-17.85pt"> </p> <p style="margin-left:48px; 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">[11]      Since the urgency referred to in the appellant’s first ground of appeal relates to relief that the appellant abandoned, that ground is left with no leg to stand on, as it were. Ground number two suffers the same fate, since it relates to a part of the application that the court declined to hear for lack of urgency.</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">The second respondent submits that once the court <i>a quo</i> found that part of the relief sought could not be granted on an urgent basis, the appellant, if dissatisfied, should have requested the reasons for the order, sought leave, and then appealed against it<a href="#_ftn3" name="_ftnref3" title="" id="_ftnref3"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><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">[3]</span></span></span></span></span></a>.</span></span></span><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">Not having done so, the appellant cannot now seek to smuggle the issues that the court <i>a quo</i> did not deal with, into his grounds of appeal for consideration by this Court. It is trite that an appeal court, by nature, sits to consider and assess the correctness or otherwise of the decision of a lower court on a particular issue. (<i>See Dynamos Football Club (Pvt) Ltd &amp; Another v Zifa &amp; Others </i>2006(1) ZLR 346 (s) at 355).</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt"> </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">Grounds of appeal 1 and 2 are accordingly discussed.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:23px; 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"><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">Whether or not the court <i>a quo</i> erred in not granting the provisional order sought.</span></span></span></b></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: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">[12]      It is evident from the appellant’s fourth ground of appeal that he accepted that the relief that he sought could very well be determined to be final in nature. That notwithstanding, his attitude is that the court <i>a quo</i> still erred in not granting the relief that he sought. It is argued in his heads of argument that the cancellation of the Title Deed in question was part of the ‘interim interdict’ that he sought <i>a quo</i> and that, in any case, there was ‘<i>small difference between the granting of an interim interdict and the granting of a final interdict</i>.’ </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt"> </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-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">[13]      The appellant argues further, that there is nothing in the High Court Act or the Rules,        that says that a final interdict or final order cannot be granted</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">in chambers.          This is because, so the argument goes, a final order can be granted provided there is   evidence and facts to support             its granting. The appellant’s lengthy heads of argument     chronicle at length and with harsh condemnation, instances of the first respondent’s    alleged unprofessional conduct in this whole dispute. On that basis and relying on a             number of authorities, the appellant surprisingly shifts from the interim relief argument,     to submit that the matter <i>a quo</i> was argued on the basis of final relief.  That being the            case, he contends, the court <i>a quo</i> should have granted the            final relief sought.  </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt"> </p> <p style="margin-left:48px; 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">[14]      The first and second respondents both sought the dismissal of the appeal with costs. It was argued for the first respondent that the relief sought in the form of an order cancelling a Deed of Transfer was final in both effect and nature, since it constituted an extinction of all rights vesting by circumstance of the Deed in question. Further, that such relief could not <i>‘properly be sought or procured on an urgent basis or at any rate, on the strength of a prima facie case.</i>’  Echoing the same sentiments, the second respondent submits that in an urgent application, a party comes to court with a <i>prima facie</i> case<b> </b>and is granted relief that is temporary in nature and meant to preserve the rights of the parties pending final resolution of the dispute on the return date.  </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt"> </p> <p style="margin-left:48px; 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">[15]      There is merit in the submissions of the first and second respondents in this respect. The court <i>a quo</i> correctly found that the interim relief sought to cancel Deed of Transfer No. 708/19 issued in the name of the second respondent, was final in its form and effect. Contrary to the appellants’ contention that there is very little difference between a provisional and a final order, the definition and purpose of the former is markedly different from that of a final order. This distinction is stressed and underlined in a <i>plethora</i> of authorities both within and without our jurisdiction.  <i>C. B Prest</i> in his book, <i>The Law and Practice of Interdicts<a href="#_ftn4" name="_ftnref4" title="" id="_ftnref4"><sup><b><sup><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">[4]</span></span></span></sup></b></sup></a> </i>defines and explains the purpose of a provisional order as follows: - </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:96px; 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 provisional order is a remedy by way of an interdict which is intended to prohibit all <i>prima facie</i> illegitimate activities. By its very nature it is both temporary and provisional, providing (<i>interim</i>) relief which serves to guard the applicant against irreparable harm which may befall him, her or it, should a full trial of the alleged grievance be carried out<b>. As the name suggests, it is provisional in nature, as the parties anticipate certain relief to be made final on a certain future date </b>upon which the applicant has to fully disclose his, her or its entitlement to a final order that the interim relief sought was ancillary to” (<i>my emphasis</i>)</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-left:48px; 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">[16]      In the South African case of <i>Development Bank of Southern Africa (Ltd) v Van Rensburg NO and Ors </i></span></span></span><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">[2002] 3 All SA 669 (SCA)</span></span></span><i> </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 court stressed that the purpose of a provisional order is to preserve the status <i>quo</i> pending the return day. (See also the Australian case In <i>Re Brian Charles Gluestein; Exparte Anthony</i> </span></span></span><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">[2014] WASC 381, and the English case </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">In <i>Attorney General v Punch Limited and Anor<sup></sup></i></span></span></span><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">[2002] UKHL 50) where the same principles were emphasised.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt"> </p> <p style="margin-left:48px; 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">[17]      Thus, unlike a provisional order, a final order is conclusive and dispositive of the dispute. It finally settles the issues in dispute and has no return date. Once a final order is given the court issuing the order becomes <i>functus officio </i>and<i> </i>cannot revisit the same issues at a later date. In <i>Chiwenga v Mubaiwa </i>SC 86/20<i> </i>this Court made the following remarks: - </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:96px; 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">“It is settled law that the standard of proof for a provisional order is different from that of a final order. A provisional order is established on a <i>prima</i> <i>facie </i>basis<b><i> </i></b>because it is merely a caretaker<b> </b>temporary order pending the final determination of the dispute on the return date<b>. </b>The parties have an opportunity to argue the matter again on the return date. <b>On the other hand, a final order is obtained on the higher test of a clear right because it is final and definitive as it has no return date.”</b></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-left:48px; 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">[18]      Interestingly, both the appellant and the first respondent cite the same passage from <i>Kuvarega v Registrar General and Anor 1998(1) ZLR 188 (HC</i>) in support of their opposing views on the propriety of the order sought by the appellant <i>a quo, </i>as follows: - </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:96px; 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">“There was nothing interim about the provisional relief sought. It would have provided the applicant with the relief she sought on the day of the election. <b>The practice of seeking interim relief, which is exactly the same as the substantive relief sued for and which has the same effect, defeats the whole object of interim protection.</b> In effect, a litigant who seeks relief in this manner obtains final relief without proving his case. <b>That is so because interim relief is normally granted on the mere showing of a <i>prima facie</i> case.</b> If the interim relief sought is identical to the main relief and has the same substantive effect, <b>it means that the applicant is granted the main relief on proof merely of a <i>prima facie</i> case. </b>This, to my mind, is undesirable especially where, as here, the applicant will have no interest in the outcome of the case on the return day. The point I am making will become clearer if I put it in another way. If, by way of interim relief the applicant has asked for a postponement of the election pending the discharge of confirmation of the provisional order she would not in that event gain an advantage over the respondents, because the point she wanted decided would have been resolved before the election was held. But if the interim relief were granted in the form in which it is presently couched, she would get effective protection before she proves her case and the election would be conducted on the basis that it is unlawful to wear t-shirts emblazoned with party symbols and slogans. Therefore, it would be fruitless for the respondent to establish their entitlement to wear such t-shirts. <b>Care must be taken in framing the interim relief sought as well as the final relief so as to obviate such incongruities.</b> (<i>my emphasis</i>)”</span></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: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">The first respondent relies on this passage to buttress his argument that the final order sought by the appellant could not be granted on the basis of a <i>prima facie</i> case. <i>Per contra</i>, the appellant argues that the same passage: -  </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:96px; 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">“Supports the position that where the matter is argued on the basis of a final relief, and there are facts that show that a final relief should be granted then the court should grant a final relief.”</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-left:48px; 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-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">[19]      While it is not clear just what part of the passage cited supports the appellant’s assertions in this respect, it is evident from the record that the appellant <i>a quo</i> and in this Court, argued for and effectively sought either provisional relief or final relief, based on the same set of evidence and facts. That this was the appellant’s somewhat unusual if not questionable approach in the court <i>a quo</i> is explained in the following remarks in the court’s judgment: - </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:96px; 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 applicant in his papers seeks a provisional order with an interim order which is in fact a final order. Urgent applications are brought to seek provisional orders as a measure to secure someone’s interests pending a return day for confirmation or discharge. The draft order by the applicant under the interim order sought says <i><u>“pending the final determination of this matter, at the return date, the applicant is granted the following relief.” (</u></i>my underlining). It is then a self-defeating argument to say one should get a final order at this stage. What should then happen on the return date. In fact, the return day will no longer be necessary for the applicant. I disagree with <i>Mr Biti </i>for the argument he advanced to secure a final order. He relied on the inherent jurisdiction of this Court, that the High Court Act does not prohibit such order being granted and also referred to some case law which I did not find helpful to resolve this issue. <b>There are a number of issues which ought to be fully argued on the return day, e.g., the effect of the payment by <i>Chiutsi,</i> whether applicant has the <i>locus standi</i> to bring this application, issues of an innocent purchaser, existence of <i>caveat </i>or otherwise etc.</b></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-left:96px; 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">This matter is an urgent application. If granted, it must have a return day, giving an opportunity to all parties to present their side of story not in an urgent atmosphere. While it is accepted that there are instances where the court may grant a final order in an urgent application. However, that depends with the uniqueness of the nature of relief sought. <b><i>In casu</i>, it is not desirable because the applicant’s interests can be secured with a temporary interdict prohibiting any transfer of property by the second respondent.</b> The interim interdict has not been pushed for by the applicant as an alternative. The court can therefore not grant that which has not been asked for. The omnibus approach advocated by <i>Mr Biti</i> in his submission is undesirable, one cannot obtain a final order in these circumstances. For these reasons this application is bound to fail.” </span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt"> </p> <p style="margin-left:48px; 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-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">[20]      We find it difficult to assail the reasoning of the court <i>a quo</i> as set out above. The appellant, through his counsel, sought to secure what even he knew was a final order on the basis of a draft order formulated as a provisional order.  In other words, he sought to be granted the main relief that he really craved, on an urgent basis, on proof merely of a <i>prima facie</i> case, and in circumstances where other relief would easily have secured his interests pending the return date. The court <i>a quo</i> properly applied the applicable law and gave cogent reasons for its inability to grant the provisional order in the form that it was presented by the appellant.  In a similar vein, the court, while accepting that in some rare instances a final order could be granted in urgent circumstances, gave sound reasons as to why the case at hand could not be given that special treatment. The appellant, in short, failed to prove a case for either an interim, or a final order. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt"> </p> <p style="margin-left:48px; 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-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">[21]      A consideration of all the authorities cited above on the definition, purpose and requirements of a provisional and a final order, and the distinction between the two, lays bare the shortcomings of and serious procedural <i>faux pas</i> attendant on, the manner in which the appellant chose to prosecute this matter, both <i>a quo</i> and on appeal. His heads of argument before this Court persist with the argument that the grant of either a provisional order or a final one, had been proved through the evidence and facts argued before the court. It is difficult to conceive how both a <i>prima facie</i> and a clear right, could have been proved on the basis of the same facts and evidence. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt"> </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">[22]      The appellant in the view of this Court, exhibited some ambivalence as to the exact           nature of the relief that he is seeking <i>in casu.</i> This calls to mind the admonition by           the court in the <i>Kuvarega</i> case (<i>supra</i>) to the effect that care needs to be taken in    framing the relief that a litigant seeks from the court, be it interim or final. One may        also add that the import and effect of the orders sought before the court also need careful             consideration to ensure compliance with the relevant procedural and substantive    law. Failure by a legal practitioner to pay attention to these details is to do grave            injustice and disservice to the litigant concerned. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt"> </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">[23]      For its failure to meet the requirements of the law both procedurally and on the merits,      the application <i>a quo</i> was doomed to fail, and was accordingly properly dismissed. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-left:48px; 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-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">            When all is considered, the appeal lacks merit and ought to be dismissed with costs.</span></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:200%"><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; 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; 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-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">DISPOSITION</span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"> </p> <p style="margin-left:48px; 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">[24]      The judgment and reasoning of the court <i>a quo</i> in this matter cannot be faulted. On the facts of the matter and the evidence placed before the court, the appellant failed to prove a case for either interim relief, or the final relief that he questionably sought. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt"> </p> <p style="margin-left:48px; 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">            It is accordingly ordered as follows: -</span></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: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 appeal be and is hereby dismissed with costs.”</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"> </p> <p style="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: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 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 agree</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: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">BHUNU JA   :</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">           I agree</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt; margin-bottom:11px"> </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">Tendai Biti Law, </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">appellant’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">Puwayi Chiutsi, </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">Legal Practitioners, 1<sup>st</sup> respondent’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">Mtetwa &amp; Nyambirayi, </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> <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">Gill, Godlonton &amp; Gerrans,</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"> 5<sup>th</sup> respondent’s legal practitioners</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <div>  <hr align="left" size="1" width="33%" /><div id="ftn1"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="text-align:justify"><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-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><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">[1]</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></a><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"> At the commencement of proceedings, counsel for the appellant informed the court that both the first respondent and his legal firm had since been de-registered by the Law Society of Zimbabwe.</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"><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:10.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[2]</span></span></span></b></span></span></b></span></a><b> </b><b><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:11.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The propriety or otherwise of the splitting of the draft reliefs sought by the appellant <i>a quo</i> was not raised by any of the parties, and has therefore not been considered. Suffice to say that the appellant, according to the learned judge <i>a quo</i>, accepted it and proceeded to amend his draft order accordingly. The matter however becomes academic when regard is had to the fact that the two issues adjudged not urgent have been overtaken by events. This is because by the time this appeal was heard both the first respondent and his legal practice had been de-registered by the Law Society of Zimbabwe.</span></span></b></span></span></p> <p class="MsoFootnoteText"> </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-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><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">[3]</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></a> <b><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">See the remarks in footnote 2, above</span></span></b><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></span></p> <p class="MsoFootnoteText"> </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-GB" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:10.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[4]</span></span></span></span></span></span></a><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-GB"> 9<sup>th</sup> ed Juta &amp; Co (Pty) Ltd p2</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-6d707b9df617f61dfe73ba4593633e2e3576e31ccc584eb478c2097eb4792e4a"> <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-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Judgment No. SC 25 /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-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Civil Appeal  SC 140/19</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-bottom:11px"> </p> <p style="margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><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:150%"><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:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">       (21)</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p align="center" style="text-align:center"> </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">ELLIOT     RODGERS</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)     PUWAYI     CHIUTSI     (2)     TENDAYI     MASHAMHANDA      (3)     REGISTRAR     OF     DEEDS               (4)     SHERIFF     OF     ZIMBABWE     (5)     BARIADE     INVESTMENTS     (PRIVATE)     LIMITED     (6)     LAW     SOCIETY     OF ZIMBABWE</span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt; margin-bottom:11px"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"> </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">SUPREME 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">GWAUNZA DCJ, GUVAVA JA &amp; BHUNU JA </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">HARARE, 16 &amp; 17 SEPTEMBER 2021 &amp; 15 FEBRUARY  2022</span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"> </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">Ms C Damiso, for the appellant </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"><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 Mubaiwa, for the first respondent</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"><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 Magwaliba, for the second respondent</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"><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">Adv T. Mpofu, </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 fifth respondent</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"><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">No </span></span></span><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">appearance for the sixth respondent</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"> </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"><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">GWAUNZA DCJ</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt; 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">[1]        This is an appeal against the whole judgment of the High Court handed down on 14 March 2019, in which the court <i>a quo </i>dismissed the appellant’s application for interim relief. The appeal was heard together with that in SC 09/20 which involved the same parties, centered around the same dispute and effectively sought the same relief that the appellant seeks <i>in casu</i>. However, separate judgments for the two appeals have been issued.<b> </b>The sixth respondent, having applied for the de-registration of the first respondent as a legal practitioner, indicated it would abide by 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: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> <p style="margin-left:48px; 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">[2]</span></span></span><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">In 2012 the appellant in this matter sold his house at No.30 Arundel School Road, with the conveyancing was done by the first respondent (a legal practitioner). From a series of actions and applications brought before the courts, it was accepted that the first respondent misappropriated some of the proceeds from the sale of the immovable property. Consequently, the appellant successfully instituted legal proceedings against the first respondent and obtained a judgment against him in 2015. Despite a multiplicity of legal proceedings at the instance of the first respondent, the appellant managed to place a <i>caveat</i> on the latter’s immovable property, being a certain piece of land situate in the district of Salisbury called the remainder of subdivision C of Lot 6 of Lot 190, 191, 192, 193, 194 and 195 Highlands estate of Welmoed measuring 4377 square metres, under Deed of Transfer No. 8421/2000.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt"> </p> <p style="margin-left:48px; 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">[3]        Pursuant to this, the Sheriff successfully sold the first respondent’s property in execution, to the fifth respondent. The first respondent in a number of applications challenged the sale in execution which the Sheriff, nevertheless, eventually confirmed. The High Court as well as this Court further upheld the confirmation of the sale. Despite these numerous judgments and the <i>caveat</i> placed upon his property, the first respondent managed to transfer the same property to the second respondent on 8 February 2019. The appellant in his founding affidavit <i>a quo</i> averred that such transfer could only have been made possible through some fraudulent conduct on the part of the first respondent in connivance with the Registrar of Deeds.</span></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:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"> </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: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">[4]        Subsequently, the appellant filed an urgent application before the court <i>a quo</i> seeking a provisional order in the following terms: - </span></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: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">“<u>Terms of final order sought</u></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:72px; 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">It is ordered that:</span></span></span></span></span></p> <ol><li style="margin-left:80px; 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">Puwayi Chiutsi be and is hereby struck off from the roll of legal practitioners.</span></span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:80px; 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">Puwayi Chiutsi and the Sheriff of Zimbabwe each paying the other to be absolved, pays costs of suit on a scale as between attorney and client.</span></span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:80px; 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 applicant’s legal practitioners be and is hereby given leave to serve the copy of this order to the Registrar of Deeds.</span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:120px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-left:72px; text-align:justify; text-indent:18.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><u><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Terms of Interim Order Sought</span></span></u></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:96px; 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">Pending the final determination of this matter, at the return date, the applicant is granted the following relief;</span></span></span></span></span></p> <ol style="list-style-type:lower-roman"><li style="margin-left:80px; 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">That Deed of Transfer No. 708/19, issued in the name of Tendai Mashamhanda in respect of a piece of land in the district of Salisbury called the remainder of subdivision C of Lot 6 of Lot 190, 191, 192, 193, 194 and 195 Highlands estate of Welmoed measuring 4377 square metres be and is hereby cancelled.</span></span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:80px; 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">That forthwith the Law Society of Zimbabwe, must place the law firm of Puwayi Chiutsi under curatorship in terms of the Legal Practitioner’s Act.</span></span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:80px; 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">Puwayi Chiutsi be and is hereby suspended from the practise of the legal profession.<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-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">[1]</span></span></span></span></span></a>”</span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><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; 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">[5]        On 28 February 2019 the court <i>a quo</i> found that the application was not urgent in as far as it related to the relief sought to compel the Law Society of Zimbabwe to place the first respondent’s law firm under curatorship and, also, his suspension from practice as a legal practitioner. On 1 March 2019, the court <i>a quo</i> proceeded to hear the rest of the application on the merits. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt"> </p> <p style="margin-left:48px; 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">[6]        The court <i>a quo</i> found that the interim relief sought by the appellant in respect of the cancellation of Deed of Transfer No. 708/19 would in fact be a final order. The court brought this issue to the attention of the parties. It was submitted on behalf of the second respondent that he was ready to accept an interim interdict to stop any transfer of the property pending determination on the return date. However, the appellant did not move for any relief in the alternative and chose to stand or fall on the final relief being sought.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt"> </p> <p style="margin-left:48px; 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">[7]        Consequently, the court <i>a quo</i> held that it was improper to seek final relief on the basis of submissions supporting the grant of an interim order.  The court noted, correctly, that such a circumstance would leave nothing for the court to confirm or discharge on the return date. It also expressed the view that the appellant’s interests could have been secured by a temporary interdict prohibiting any transfer of property by the second respondent pending the return date. However, the court took the view that it could not grant such an order as it had not been prayed for, and accordingly, dismissed the application.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt"> </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">Aggrieved by this decision, the appellant noted the present appeal on the following grounds: - </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <ol><li style="margin-left:80px; 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 court <i>a quo</i> grossly erred, holding that there was no urgency in the application in so far as it related to the suspension of <i>Puwayi Chiutsi</i> the first respondent from practicing as a legal practitioner.</span></span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:80px; 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 court <i>a quo</i> grossly erred in not understanding and holding that the court, as well as the appellant, had the duty to ensure the protection of the public and indeed the legal protection against errant lawyer (sic) whose damage to the public and to the legal profession was immense.</span></span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:80px; 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 court <i>a quo</i> grossly erred, in failing to grant the provisional order sought in terms of the chamber application filed by the appellant.</span></span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:80px; 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">Further as a question of law, the court <i>a quo</i> erred in not finding that in the circumstances of this case, the appellant had shown the legal basis for the granting of the order that was sought whether or not it could be classified as final. </span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:120px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"> </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">In addition to an order that the appeal be allowed with costs, the appellant seeks an order that the judgment of the High Court be set aside and substituted with an order granting the relief that he originally sought <i>a quo</i>. This is notwithstanding the fact that he had amended his draft order to leave out the parts of the relief that the court had ruled not to be urgent.  </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: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">ISSUE FOR DETERMINATION</span></span></span></b></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: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">[8]</span></span></span><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">Notwithstanding the fact that the appellant has four grounds of appeal as outlined, the only issue that arises for determination in this matter is contained in the appellant’s third and fourth grounds of appeal, that is, whether or not the court <i>a quo</i> erred in dismissing the application for what was in fact a final order disguised as provisional order. The court finds the other two grounds of appeal to be both misplaced and without merit. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt"> </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-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">[9]        As already indicated, the court <i>a quo</i> ruled not to be urgent, two aspects of the      appellant’s application<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-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">[2]</span></span></span></span></span></a>. These pertained to the order seeking to compel the Law          Society of Zimbabwe to place the law firm of <i>Puwayi Chiutsi</i> under       curatorship, and the order seeking the suspension of <i>Puwayi Chiutsi </i>from practising as    a legal practitioner. The court then proceeded to hear the rest of the application on the             merits, as outlined thus in its judgment: -</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:96px; 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">“I proceeded to hear the merits of the application on 1 March 2019. The first respondent was in default. Before commencement of submissions, I drew <i>Mr Biti</i>’s attention to the fact that the interim relief sought was in fact a final order i.e. the prayer for cancellation of Deed of Transfer No. 708/19 issued in the name of the second respondent. <i>Mr Biti</i> said he was aware of that and was going to seek the order in that form. <b>He applied for the amendment of the Provisional Order by removal of that part of the prayer for which the court had ruled could(<i>sic</i>)not proceed on urgency. <u>He also sought the removal of all such similar relief from the final order sought and that the final order sought should only contain the issue of costs</u></b>. This was so, I believe, because the interim relief sought a final order.” (my emphasis)</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:23px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-17.85pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">                        </span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:24px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-18.0pt"><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">[10]      The import of these remarks is that the appellant abandoned, for purposes of the    proceedings <i>a quo</i>, paras 1 and 3 of the final relief sought, leaving only para 2,        which pertained to the prayer for costs against the first and fourth respondents. Further,            that in so far as the ‘Interim Relief’ sought was concerned, the appellant abandoned the last two paragraphs. That left only the first paragraph, pertaining to the cancellation of        the Deed of Transfer No 708/19, issued in the name of <i>Tendai Mashamhanda</i>, the             second respondent. Thus, the appellant’s amended draft order <i>a quo</i> would have read       something like this: - </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:24px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-18.0pt"><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">                        <b>Terms of the Final Order Sought</b></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"><b><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">It is ordered that:</span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-54.0pt"><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">                  Puwayi Chiutsi and the Sheriff of Zimbabwe each paying the other to be absolved, pays costs of suit on a scale as between attorney and client.</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:72px; text-align:justify; text-indent:18.0pt"><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">Terms of Interim Order Sought</span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:96px; 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">Pending the final determination of this matter, at the return date, the applicant is granted the following relief;</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:96px; 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">That Deed of Transfer No. 708/19, issued in the name of Tendai Mashamhanda in respect of a piece of land in the district of Salisbury called the remainder of subdivision C of Lot 6 of Lot 190, 191, 192, 193, 194 and 195 Highlands estate of Welmoed measuring 4377 square metres be and is hereby cancelled.</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:23px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-17.85pt"> </p> <p style="margin-left:48px; 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">[11]      Since the urgency referred to in the appellant’s first ground of appeal relates to relief that the appellant abandoned, that ground is left with no leg to stand on, as it were. Ground number two suffers the same fate, since it relates to a part of the application that the court declined to hear for lack of urgency.</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">The second respondent submits that once the court <i>a quo</i> found that part of the relief sought could not be granted on an urgent basis, the appellant, if dissatisfied, should have requested the reasons for the order, sought leave, and then appealed against it<a href="#_ftn3" name="_ftnref3" title="" id="_ftnref3"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><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">[3]</span></span></span></span></span></a>.</span></span></span><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">Not having done so, the appellant cannot now seek to smuggle the issues that the court <i>a quo</i> did not deal with, into his grounds of appeal for consideration by this Court. It is trite that an appeal court, by nature, sits to consider and assess the correctness or otherwise of the decision of a lower court on a particular issue. (<i>See Dynamos Football Club (Pvt) Ltd &amp; Another v Zifa &amp; Others </i>2006(1) ZLR 346 (s) at 355).</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt"> </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">Grounds of appeal 1 and 2 are accordingly discussed.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:23px; 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"><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">Whether or not the court <i>a quo</i> erred in not granting the provisional order sought.</span></span></span></b></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: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">[12]      It is evident from the appellant’s fourth ground of appeal that he accepted that the relief that he sought could very well be determined to be final in nature. That notwithstanding, his attitude is that the court <i>a quo</i> still erred in not granting the relief that he sought. It is argued in his heads of argument that the cancellation of the Title Deed in question was part of the ‘interim interdict’ that he sought <i>a quo</i> and that, in any case, there was ‘<i>small difference between the granting of an interim interdict and the granting of a final interdict</i>.’ </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt"> </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-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">[13]      The appellant argues further, that there is nothing in the High Court Act or the Rules,        that says that a final interdict or final order cannot be granted</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">in chambers.          This is because, so the argument goes, a final order can be granted provided there is   evidence and facts to support             its granting. The appellant’s lengthy heads of argument     chronicle at length and with harsh condemnation, instances of the first respondent’s    alleged unprofessional conduct in this whole dispute. On that basis and relying on a             number of authorities, the appellant surprisingly shifts from the interim relief argument,     to submit that the matter <i>a quo</i> was argued on the basis of final relief.  That being the            case, he contends, the court <i>a quo</i> should have granted the            final relief sought.  </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt"> </p> <p style="margin-left:48px; 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">[14]      The first and second respondents both sought the dismissal of the appeal with costs. It was argued for the first respondent that the relief sought in the form of an order cancelling a Deed of Transfer was final in both effect and nature, since it constituted an extinction of all rights vesting by circumstance of the Deed in question. Further, that such relief could not <i>‘properly be sought or procured on an urgent basis or at any rate, on the strength of a prima facie case.</i>’  Echoing the same sentiments, the second respondent submits that in an urgent application, a party comes to court with a <i>prima facie</i> case<b> </b>and is granted relief that is temporary in nature and meant to preserve the rights of the parties pending final resolution of the dispute on the return date.  </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt"> </p> <p style="margin-left:48px; 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">[15]      There is merit in the submissions of the first and second respondents in this respect. The court <i>a quo</i> correctly found that the interim relief sought to cancel Deed of Transfer No. 708/19 issued in the name of the second respondent, was final in its form and effect. Contrary to the appellants’ contention that there is very little difference between a provisional and a final order, the definition and purpose of the former is markedly different from that of a final order. This distinction is stressed and underlined in a <i>plethora</i> of authorities both within and without our jurisdiction.  <i>C. B Prest</i> in his book, <i>The Law and Practice of Interdicts<a href="#_ftn4" name="_ftnref4" title="" id="_ftnref4"><sup><b><sup><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">[4]</span></span></span></sup></b></sup></a> </i>defines and explains the purpose of a provisional order as follows: - </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:96px; 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 provisional order is a remedy by way of an interdict which is intended to prohibit all <i>prima facie</i> illegitimate activities. By its very nature it is both temporary and provisional, providing (<i>interim</i>) relief which serves to guard the applicant against irreparable harm which may befall him, her or it, should a full trial of the alleged grievance be carried out<b>. As the name suggests, it is provisional in nature, as the parties anticipate certain relief to be made final on a certain future date </b>upon which the applicant has to fully disclose his, her or its entitlement to a final order that the interim relief sought was ancillary to” (<i>my emphasis</i>)</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-left:48px; 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">[16]      In the South African case of <i>Development Bank of Southern Africa (Ltd) v Van Rensburg NO and Ors </i></span></span></span><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">[2002] 3 All SA 669 (SCA)</span></span></span><i> </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 court stressed that the purpose of a provisional order is to preserve the status <i>quo</i> pending the return day. (See also the Australian case In <i>Re Brian Charles Gluestein; Exparte Anthony</i> </span></span></span><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">[2014] WASC 381, and the English case </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">In <i>Attorney General v Punch Limited and Anor<sup></sup></i></span></span></span><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">[2002] UKHL 50) where the same principles were emphasised.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt"> </p> <p style="margin-left:48px; 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">[17]      Thus, unlike a provisional order, a final order is conclusive and dispositive of the dispute. It finally settles the issues in dispute and has no return date. Once a final order is given the court issuing the order becomes <i>functus officio </i>and<i> </i>cannot revisit the same issues at a later date. In <i>Chiwenga v Mubaiwa </i>SC 86/20<i> </i>this Court made the following remarks: - </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:96px; 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">“It is settled law that the standard of proof for a provisional order is different from that of a final order. A provisional order is established on a <i>prima</i> <i>facie </i>basis<b><i> </i></b>because it is merely a caretaker<b> </b>temporary order pending the final determination of the dispute on the return date<b>. </b>The parties have an opportunity to argue the matter again on the return date. <b>On the other hand, a final order is obtained on the higher test of a clear right because it is final and definitive as it has no return date.”</b></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-left:48px; 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">[18]      Interestingly, both the appellant and the first respondent cite the same passage from <i>Kuvarega v Registrar General and Anor 1998(1) ZLR 188 (HC</i>) in support of their opposing views on the propriety of the order sought by the appellant <i>a quo, </i>as follows: - </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:96px; 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">“There was nothing interim about the provisional relief sought. It would have provided the applicant with the relief she sought on the day of the election. <b>The practice of seeking interim relief, which is exactly the same as the substantive relief sued for and which has the same effect, defeats the whole object of interim protection.</b> In effect, a litigant who seeks relief in this manner obtains final relief without proving his case. <b>That is so because interim relief is normally granted on the mere showing of a <i>prima facie</i> case.</b> If the interim relief sought is identical to the main relief and has the same substantive effect, <b>it means that the applicant is granted the main relief on proof merely of a <i>prima facie</i> case. </b>This, to my mind, is undesirable especially where, as here, the applicant will have no interest in the outcome of the case on the return day. The point I am making will become clearer if I put it in another way. If, by way of interim relief the applicant has asked for a postponement of the election pending the discharge of confirmation of the provisional order she would not in that event gain an advantage over the respondents, because the point she wanted decided would have been resolved before the election was held. But if the interim relief were granted in the form in which it is presently couched, she would get effective protection before she proves her case and the election would be conducted on the basis that it is unlawful to wear t-shirts emblazoned with party symbols and slogans. Therefore, it would be fruitless for the respondent to establish their entitlement to wear such t-shirts. <b>Care must be taken in framing the interim relief sought as well as the final relief so as to obviate such incongruities.</b> (<i>my emphasis</i>)”</span></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: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">The first respondent relies on this passage to buttress his argument that the final order sought by the appellant could not be granted on the basis of a <i>prima facie</i> case. <i>Per contra</i>, the appellant argues that the same passage: -  </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:96px; 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">“Supports the position that where the matter is argued on the basis of a final relief, and there are facts that show that a final relief should be granted then the court should grant a final relief.”</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-left:48px; 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-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">[19]      While it is not clear just what part of the passage cited supports the appellant’s assertions in this respect, it is evident from the record that the appellant <i>a quo</i> and in this Court, argued for and effectively sought either provisional relief or final relief, based on the same set of evidence and facts. That this was the appellant’s somewhat unusual if not questionable approach in the court <i>a quo</i> is explained in the following remarks in the court’s judgment: - </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:96px; 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 applicant in his papers seeks a provisional order with an interim order which is in fact a final order. Urgent applications are brought to seek provisional orders as a measure to secure someone’s interests pending a return day for confirmation or discharge. The draft order by the applicant under the interim order sought says <i><u>“pending the final determination of this matter, at the return date, the applicant is granted the following relief.” (</u></i>my underlining). It is then a self-defeating argument to say one should get a final order at this stage. What should then happen on the return date. In fact, the return day will no longer be necessary for the applicant. I disagree with <i>Mr Biti </i>for the argument he advanced to secure a final order. He relied on the inherent jurisdiction of this Court, that the High Court Act does not prohibit such order being granted and also referred to some case law which I did not find helpful to resolve this issue. <b>There are a number of issues which ought to be fully argued on the return day, e.g., the effect of the payment by <i>Chiutsi,</i> whether applicant has the <i>locus standi</i> to bring this application, issues of an innocent purchaser, existence of <i>caveat </i>or otherwise etc.</b></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-left:96px; 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">This matter is an urgent application. If granted, it must have a return day, giving an opportunity to all parties to present their side of story not in an urgent atmosphere. While it is accepted that there are instances where the court may grant a final order in an urgent application. However, that depends with the uniqueness of the nature of relief sought. <b><i>In casu</i>, it is not desirable because the applicant’s interests can be secured with a temporary interdict prohibiting any transfer of property by the second respondent.</b> The interim interdict has not been pushed for by the applicant as an alternative. The court can therefore not grant that which has not been asked for. The omnibus approach advocated by <i>Mr Biti</i> in his submission is undesirable, one cannot obtain a final order in these circumstances. For these reasons this application is bound to fail.” </span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt"> </p> <p style="margin-left:48px; 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-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">[20]      We find it difficult to assail the reasoning of the court <i>a quo</i> as set out above. The appellant, through his counsel, sought to secure what even he knew was a final order on the basis of a draft order formulated as a provisional order.  In other words, he sought to be granted the main relief that he really craved, on an urgent basis, on proof merely of a <i>prima facie</i> case, and in circumstances where other relief would easily have secured his interests pending the return date. The court <i>a quo</i> properly applied the applicable law and gave cogent reasons for its inability to grant the provisional order in the form that it was presented by the appellant.  In a similar vein, the court, while accepting that in some rare instances a final order could be granted in urgent circumstances, gave sound reasons as to why the case at hand could not be given that special treatment. The appellant, in short, failed to prove a case for either an interim, or a final order. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt"> </p> <p style="margin-left:48px; 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-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">[21]      A consideration of all the authorities cited above on the definition, purpose and requirements of a provisional and a final order, and the distinction between the two, lays bare the shortcomings of and serious procedural <i>faux pas</i> attendant on, the manner in which the appellant chose to prosecute this matter, both <i>a quo</i> and on appeal. His heads of argument before this Court persist with the argument that the grant of either a provisional order or a final one, had been proved through the evidence and facts argued before the court. It is difficult to conceive how both a <i>prima facie</i> and a clear right, could have been proved on the basis of the same facts and evidence. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt"> </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">[22]      The appellant in the view of this Court, exhibited some ambivalence as to the exact           nature of the relief that he is seeking <i>in casu.</i> This calls to mind the admonition by           the court in the <i>Kuvarega</i> case (<i>supra</i>) to the effect that care needs to be taken in    framing the relief that a litigant seeks from the court, be it interim or final. One may        also add that the import and effect of the orders sought before the court also need careful             consideration to ensure compliance with the relevant procedural and substantive    law. Failure by a legal practitioner to pay attention to these details is to do grave            injustice and disservice to the litigant concerned. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt"> </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">[23]      For its failure to meet the requirements of the law both procedurally and on the merits,      the application <i>a quo</i> was doomed to fail, and was accordingly properly dismissed. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-left:48px; 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-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">            When all is considered, the appeal lacks merit and ought to be dismissed with costs.</span></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:200%"><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; 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; 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-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">DISPOSITION</span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"> </p> <p style="margin-left:48px; 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">[24]      The judgment and reasoning of the court <i>a quo</i> in this matter cannot be faulted. On the facts of the matter and the evidence placed before the court, the appellant failed to prove a case for either interim relief, or the final relief that he questionably sought. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt"> </p> <p style="margin-left:48px; 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">            It is accordingly ordered as follows: -</span></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: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 appeal be and is hereby dismissed with costs.”</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"> </p> <p style="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: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 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 agree</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: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">BHUNU JA   :</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">           I agree</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt; margin-bottom:11px"> </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">Tendai Biti Law, </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">appellant’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">Puwayi Chiutsi, </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">Legal Practitioners, 1<sup>st</sup> respondent’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">Mtetwa &amp; Nyambirayi, </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> <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">Gill, Godlonton &amp; Gerrans,</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"> 5<sup>th</sup> respondent’s legal practitioners</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <div>  <hr align="left" size="1" width="33%" /><div id="ftn1"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="text-align:justify"><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-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><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">[1]</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></a><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"> At the commencement of proceedings, counsel for the appellant informed the court that both the first respondent and his legal firm had since been de-registered by the Law Society of Zimbabwe.</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"><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:10.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[2]</span></span></span></b></span></span></b></span></a><b> </b><b><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:11.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The propriety or otherwise of the splitting of the draft reliefs sought by the appellant <i>a quo</i> was not raised by any of the parties, and has therefore not been considered. Suffice to say that the appellant, according to the learned judge <i>a quo</i>, accepted it and proceeded to amend his draft order accordingly. The matter however becomes academic when regard is had to the fact that the two issues adjudged not urgent have been overtaken by events. This is because by the time this appeal was heard both the first respondent and his legal practice had been de-registered by the Law Society of Zimbabwe.</span></span></b></span></span></p> <p class="MsoFootnoteText"> </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-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><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">[3]</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></a> <b><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">See the remarks in footnote 2, above</span></span></b><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></span></p> <p class="MsoFootnoteText"> </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-GB" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:10.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[4]</span></span></span></span></span></span></a><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif" xml:lang="EN-GB"> 9<sup>th</sup> ed Juta &amp; Co (Pty) Ltd p2</span></span></span></p> </div> </div></span></div></div> </div> </div> Mon, 11 Apr 2022 10:21:51 +0000 Sandra Muengwa 12387 at http://zimlii.org NMB Bank Limited v Formscaff (Private) Limited and 6 Others (31 of 2022) [2022] ZWSC 31 (25 February 2022); http://zimlii.org/zw/judgment/supreme-court-zimbabwe/2022/31 <span class="field field--name-title field--type-string field--label-hidden">NMB Bank Limited v Formscaff (Private) Limited and 6 Others (31 of 2022) [2022] ZWSC 31 (25 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/2172" hreflang="x-default">Absolution from the instance – principles</a></div> <div class="field__item"><a href="/taxonomy/term/2307" hreflang="x-default">action brought against surety after judgment taken against principal debtor</a></div> <div class="field__item"><a href="/taxonomy/term/2306" hreflang="x-default">Surety – liability of</a></div> <div class="field__item"><a href="/taxonomy/term/2305" hreflang="x-default">SURETYSHIP</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, 04/11/2022 - 09:58</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/2022/31/2022-zwsc-31.docx" type="application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document; length=58383">2022-zwsc-31.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/2022/31/2022-zwsc-31.pdf" type="application/pdf; length=415785">2022-zwsc-31.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">Judgment No. SC 31/22</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">Civil Appeal No. SC 754/18</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: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   (27)</span></span></span></u></b></span></span></span></p> <p align="center" style="text-align:center"> </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">NMB     BANK     LIMITED</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> <ol><li align="center" style="text-align:center; margin-left:8px"><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">     FORMSCAFF     (PRIVATE)     LIMITED      (2)      PENNIWILL      (PRIVATE)     LIMITED      (3)      RODNEY      CALLAGHAN      (4)      MILLICENT     TERESA     CALLAGHAN     (5)     CHARLES     CANNINGS     (6) CLIFFORD     JOHNSON     (7)      LESLEY     BENNET</span></span></b></span></span></span></li> </ol><p align="center" style="text-align:center; margin-bottom:11px"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">SUPREME COURT OF ZIMBABWE</span></span></b></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">GARWE JA, PATEL JA &amp; GUVAVA JA</span></span></b></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">HARARE, 17 OCTOBER 2019 &amp; 25 FEBRUARY 2022</span></span></b></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"> </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-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">E. Mubaiwa</span></span></span></i><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">, 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-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">W. Ncube</span></span></span></i><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">, for the 1<sup>st</sup>, 3<sup>rd</sup> - 7<sup>th</sup> respondents</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-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">L. Uriri, </span></span></span></i><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">for the 2<sup>nd</sup> respondent</span></span></span></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"><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">GUVAVA JA</span></span></span></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">:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <ol><li class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:2px; 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"> This is an appeal against the whole judgment of the High Court (court <i>a quo</i>) dated 18 October 2018. The court <i>a quo</i> granted an application for absolution from the instance made jointly by the respondents, granted claims in reconvention and ordered the appellant to pay costs of the counterclaims on a legal practitioner and client scale.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:42px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"> </span></span></p> <ol start="2"><li class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:8px; 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">The court <i>a quo</i> erred in this regard and the appellant was correctly aggrieved by the judgment of the court <i>a quo</i>. There is no evidence in the record that first, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh respondents had filed counterclaims and the court <i>a quo</i> erred in granting counterclaims that were not before the court. Although the second respondent was properly before the court <i>a quo</i> the requirements for the grant of absolution from the instance were not met.  Accordingly, the judgment must be vacated. I set out hereunder the reasons for this finding.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify; text-indent:18.0pt"><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">BACKGROUND FACTS</span></span></span></u></b></span></span></span></p> <ol start="3"><li class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:8px; 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 is a registered commercial bank operating in Zimbabwe. The first respondent is a private company registered in accordance with the laws of Zimbabwe. The third to seventh respondents are private individuals who bound themselves as sureties and co-principal debtors in respect of a loan granted to the first respondent.  The second respondent is a private limited company duly incorporated in Zimbabwe.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"> </span></span></p> <ol start="4"><li class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:8px; 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 issued summons against the respondents on 13 March 2017 for the payment of US$ 368 706.62 being capital and US$ 20 654.10 being interest on the sum of US$ 368 706.62 at the rate of 18% per annum, which rate was subject to change from time to time, with effect from 26 November 2016 to date of payment in full and costs of suit on a legal practitioner and client scale. At the commencement of trial, by consent of the parties, the claim was amended to read as follows:</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-top:16px; margin-left:96px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><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">“(i) by deletion of the capital amount of US$ 368 706.62 and the substitution thereof with the amount of US$ 361 034.23.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-top:16px; margin-left:96px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><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">(ii) by deletion of the interest amount of US$ 20 654.10 and the substitution thereof with the amount US$ 28 246.49.”</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-top:16px; margin-left:96px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-top:16px; margin-left:54px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-40.5pt"><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">5.     The total amount claimed by the appellant amounted to US$ 389 362.72. In its particulars of claim the appellant averred that in or around November 2015, the appellant and the first respondent entered into an agreement in terms of which the appellant extended to the first respondent a loan for the sum of US$ 373 000.00.  The loan was accessed through the first respondent’s operating account and was for the purpose of assisting the first respondent in financing its working capital requirements.  Interest was to accrue on the facility at the rate of 12% per annum subject to change from time to time and 18% per annum in the event of default by the first respondent in making due and punctual payment of any instalment.  The loan advanced was repayable to the appellant as follows:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><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) US$ 2 000.00 on the 30<sup>th</sup> November 2015</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><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">             (b) US$ 1 500.00 on the 30<sup>th</sup> December 2015</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><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">             (c) US$ 2 000.00 on the 30<sup>th</sup> January 2016</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:108px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-9.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><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 thereafter, US$ 15 200.00 per month with effect from the 28<sup>th</sup> of February 2016 until full payment.”</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:108px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-9.0pt"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-top:16px; margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-27.0pt"><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">6.    It was a term of the agreement that in the event of the first respondent defaulting in making due and punctual payment of any instalment, the total outstanding amount would immediately become due and payable.   The second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh respondents bound themselves jointly and severally as sureties and co-principal debtors with the first respondent for payment of any and all monies due to the appellant. The respondents defaulted in making due payment of the loan under the agreement giving rise to the total outstanding amount claimed by the appellant of US$ 389 362.72.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"> </span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-top:16px; margin-left:48px; 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">7.       All the respondents jointly entered an appearance to defend and in their plea denied that the amount claimed by the appellant arose from the agreement dated 2 November 2015. The first respondent denied owing the appellant any money as it argued that the loan advanced through the loan agreement was repaid in full on the 30<sup>th</sup> of December 2015. The first respondent further denied owing the appellant any interest under the loan facility and maintained that the appellant actually recovered more interest from it than was lawfully due. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-top:16px; margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:40.5pt"><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">8.      The second to the seventh respondents averred that all the suretyship deeds held by the appellant were void for vagueness as they covered an unlimited liability. They contended that a suretyship deed must contain a limit in monetary terms so as to be valid.  The second respondent averred that the deed of suretyship between it and the appellant was void as it was not authorised by its board of directors. The first respondent further stated that the acknowledgment of debt executed by it in favour of the appellant was unenforceable as it was not signed by its representatives. The second respondent also averred that it never authorised the registration of a mortgage bond in favour of the appellant over its property known as Subdivision A of Subdivision H of N’Thaba of Glen Lorne situate in the District of Salisbury held under Deed of Transfer number 1998/95 (‘the property’).</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-27.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="tab-stops:40.5pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"> </span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-top:16px; margin-left:42px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-31.5pt"><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"> 9.     Together with its plea, the second respondent filed a claim in reconvention against the appellant and averred that the appellant fraudulently procured a suretyship and mortgage bond in its favour over the second respondent’s property. The second respondent prayed that the suretyship deed and mortgage bond be cancelled. The appellant entered a plea against the claim in reconvention and denied all the averments made by the respondents.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-top:16px; margin-left:42px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-31.5pt"><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">10.     On 30 May 2017, the third to seventh respondents indicated their intention to apply to amend their pleas and file a claim in reconvention at the pre-trial conference. The amendments sought alleged that all the respondents’ purported suretyships had expired by effluxion of time, having been signed more than three years before the loan was granted. It was also averred that the suretyships were in contravention of s 12 of the Moneylending and Rates of Interest Act [<i>Chapter 14: 14</i>] (‘the Moneylending Act’) and as such were invalid and unenforceable. In the proposed claim in reconvention, the third to seventh respondents sought an order that their respective suretyships be declared null and void. The second, third and fourth respondents prayed that the mortgage bonds in their names be cancelled.  There is, however, no evidence in the record that the amendment was ever granted at the pre- trial conference or at the trial.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:42px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-31.5pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"> </span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:42px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-31.5pt"><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">11.     On 27 July 2017, the parties signed a Joint Pre-Trial Conference Minute and the issues for determination by the court <i>a quo</i> were stated as follows:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:126px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-27.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><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">“1. Whether 2<sup>nd</sup>, 3<sup>rd</sup>, 4<sup>th</sup>, 5<sup>th</sup>, 6<sup>th</sup>, and 7<sup>th</sup> Defendants’ deeds of Suretyship are valid and enforceable.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <ol><li class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-top:16px; margin-left:80px; 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-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Whether 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendant’s 1<sup>st</sup> and 2<sup>nd</sup> Mortgage Bonds (numbers 1557/13 and 1656/13) in favour of Plaintiff are valid and enforceable or whether they should be cancelled. </span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-top:16px; margin-left:80px; 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-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Whether 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant is indebted to Plaintiff under the Loan Agreement dated 2 November 2015 in the sums of US$ 368 706.62 as capital and US$ 20 654.10 as interest and was there novation or termination of the loan agreement. </span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-top:16px; margin-left:80px; 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-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Whether 1<sup>st</sup>, 2<sup>nd</sup>, 3<sup>rd</sup>, 4<sup>th</sup>, 5<sup>th</sup>, 6<sup>th</sup> and 7<sup>th</sup> Defendants, jointly and severally one paying the others to be absolved are indebted to Plaintiff as alleged or at all.”</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-top:16px; margin-left:120px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-top:16px; margin-left:72px; 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">12.    At the trial, the appellant led evidence through two witnesses, namely, Mr. C. Gunundu (Gunundu) the appellant’s Account Relationship Manager and Mr. V.S. Nyangulu (Nyangulu) a registered legal practitioner and conveyancer.  Gunundu testified that the appellant and the first respondent had a long business history spanning many years. They agreed that the bank would advance a loan to the first respondent which loan would, in turn, re-finance the existing loan already held by the first respondent. He further testified that the first respondent and its sureties had failed on numerous occasions to fulfil the loan obligations which it owed to the appellant. The new arrangement was meant to assist the respondents. Gunundu maintained that the surety deeds and mortgage bonds made by the second to seventh respondents in the appellant’s favour were all valid and properly constituted. He further maintained that the sureties were open and unlimited and as such covered all the money obtained through loans by the first respondent from the appellant.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-top:16px; margin-left:66px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-49.5pt"><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">13.       The second witness, Nyangulu, testified that the mortgage bonds he registered on behalf of the second respondent in favour of the appellant were valid and were registered after due process and board resolutions had been passed. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-top:16px; margin-left:54px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-40.5pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:31.5pt 45.0pt"><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"> 14.      At the close of the appellant’s case, the first to seventh respondents made an application for absolution from the instance. In making the application the first and third to seventh respondents averred that the appellant sued the respondents on a cause of action which had already been discharged on 31 December 2015.  They also alleged that their sureties were not valid. In making its application the second<sup></sup>respondent averred that the appellant failed to prove a valid cause of action that the mortgage bonds against its property, registered in favour of the appellant, were valid. </span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-top:16px; margin-left:48px; 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">15.     In response to the applications for absolution from the instance, the appellant argued that the applications were frivolous.  It vehemently denied receiving any payment from the first respondent in repayment of the loan. It also maintained that all the documents in respect of the security for the loan were valid and that the obligation of the sureties had not been extinguished by prescription or on any other basis. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-top:16px; margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:18.0pt 40.5pt"><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">16.    The court <i>a quo</i>, in dealing with the matter, found that the appellant’s first witness Gunundu was not a credible witness and that he contradicted himself on material issues. The court further found that the appellant failed to prove a <i>prima facie</i> case against the respondents.  The court went on to find that the first respondent repaid the loan of US$ 350 000 on 31 December 2015 as evidenced by the appellant’s own books of account and statements. The court <i>a quo</i> also found that the suretyships made in favour of the appellant by the second to seventh respondents were invalid and unenforceable as they were not in compliance with s 12 of the Moneylending Act. Further, that the sureties did not relate to the 2 November 2015 loan facility and as such could not be relied upon by the appellant in making a cause of action for the repayment of a loan under that facility. </span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-top:16px; margin-left:42px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:45.0pt"><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">17.    The court <i>a quo</i> further held that the mortgage bonds executed in the second respondent’s name were invalid as they were not made in compliance with the law and that the sureties and mortgage bonds could not be held to have an unlimited clause to their operation as such a clause was contrary to public policy. The court concluded that, as the appellant had failed to prove a <i>prima facie</i> case against the respondents, the respondents’ claims in reconvention had merit and that there was no need to put the respondents to their defence. In the result the court made the following order:</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-top:16px; margin-left:138px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-31.5pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="tab-stops:99.0pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><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">“1. The application for absolution from the instance made by the defendants succeeds with costs.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-top:16px; margin-left:138px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-22.5pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="tab-stops:90.0pt 94.5pt 103.5pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><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">2. The surety ships (<i>sic</i>) in favour of the plaintiff entered into by 2<sup>nd</sup>, 3<sup>rd</sup>, 4<sup>th</sup>, 5<sup>th</sup>, 6<sup>th</sup> and 7<sup>th</sup> defendant and plaintiff be and are hereby cancelled.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-top:16px; margin-left:132px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-22.5pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="tab-stops:76.5pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><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">3. The mortgage bonds passed by 2<sup>nd</sup>, 3<sup>rd</sup> and 4<sup>th</sup> defendants in favour of plaintiff namely Numbers 2416/2011, 4889/2011, 1557/2013 and 1656/2013 be and are hereby cancelled. </span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-top:16px; margin-left:120px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-18.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><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">4. The plaintiff to pay costs of counterclaim to the defendants on attorney-client scale.”</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:120px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-18.0pt"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-top:16px; margin-left:48px; 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-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">18.    Dissatisfied with the decision of the court <i>a quo</i>, the appellant noted the present appeal on the following grounds of appeal:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:84px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-9.0pt; margin-bottom:11px"><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">“1. The court <i>a quo</i> erred in holding that any amounts   which were due to Appellant under the agreement dated 2 November 2015, were repaid in full and that Plaintiff sued on a cause of action that was discharged in full on the 30<sup>th</sup> of December 2015, in so doing, the court <i>a quo</i> failed to appreciate that the agreement (dated 2 November 2015) was entered into to enable the 1<sup>st</sup> respondent to settle previously existing debts. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <ol><li style="list-style-type:none"> <ol><li style="margin-left:46px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="tab-stops:81.0pt"><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 <i>a quo</i> erred in strictly evaluating and rejecting the appellant’s evidence and effectively demanding of it more than a <i>prima facie</i> (<i>sic</i>) as if it had (sic) evidence from defendants.  </span></span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:46px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="tab-stops:94.5pt"><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 <i>a quo</i> erred in granting respondents 1, 3 to 7 counter-claims which were not before it.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:52px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="tab-stops:94.5pt"><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 <i>a quo</i> erred in granting the counter-claims by respondents 1, 3 to 7 when those respondents had not moved it to grant same as at that stage.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:52px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="tab-stops:99.0pt"><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 <i>a quo</i> erred in itself cancelling the parties’ agreements when it was not a party thereto and in violation of the sanctity thereof.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol></li> <li class="CxSpFirst" style="margin-left:32px; 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 court <i>a quo</i> erred in holding that:</span></span></span></span></li> </ol><ol style="list-style-type:lower-alpha"><li class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:104px; 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 Suretyship agreements executed by 2<sup>nd</sup>, 3<sup>rd</sup>, 4<sup>th</sup>, 5<sup>th</sup>, 6<sup>th</sup> and 7<sup>th</sup> Respondents did not relate to the agreement dated 2 November 2015, and that neither did they cover any amounts due thereunder.</span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:144px; text-align:justify"> </p> <ol start="2" style="list-style-type:lower-alpha"><li class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:110px; 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 Suretyship agreements had prescribed. In so holding, the court <i>a quo</i> grossly failed to appreciate that at law, a Surety’s obligations only arise upon demand.</span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:132px; text-align:justify"> </p> <ol start="3" style="list-style-type:lower-alpha"><li class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:110px; 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 2<sup>nd</sup>, 3<sup>rd</sup>,4<sup>th</sup> ,5<sup>th</sup>,6<sup>th</sup> and 7<sup>th</sup> Respondents were released from their Suretyship due to material variation of the principal obligation, when this was not pleaded and no evidence proving actual prejudice was placed.</span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:150px; text-align:justify"> </p> <ol start="4" style="list-style-type:lower-alpha"><li class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:110px; 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">That 2<sup>nd</sup>, 3<sup>rd</sup>, 4<sup>th</sup>,5<sup>th</sup>, 6<sup>th</sup> and 7<sup>th</sup> Respondents’ suretyship agreements were void for being contrary to public policy.</span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:120px; text-align:justify"> </p> <ol start="3"><li class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:32px; 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">In agreeing with 2<sup>nd</sup>, 3<sup>rd</sup>, 4<sup>th</sup>, 5<sup>th</sup>, 6<sup>th</sup> and 7<sup>th</sup> Respondents’ entire submissions on the application for absolution from the instance, the court <i>a quo</i> grossly erred in holding 2<sup>nd</sup> to 7<sup>th</sup> Respondents’ averment that the suretyship agreements are invalid for violation of Section 12 of the Money Lending (<i>sic</i>) and Rates of Interest Act [<i>Chapter 14:14</i>].</span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:72px; text-align:justify"> </p> <ol start="4"><li class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:32px; 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 court <i>a quo</i> erred in holding that the Mortgage Bond passed by 2<sup>nd</sup> Respondent, and 3<sup>rd</sup> and 4<sup>th</sup> Respondents are invalid and grossly failed to appreciate that at law, the Mortgage Bonds are valid as an instrument of both debt and hypothecation.</span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:72px; text-align:justify"> </p> <ol start="5"><li class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:32px; 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">Consequent to the gross misdirection referred to in Paragraph 1, 2,3 and 4 above, the court <i>a quo</i> erred in granting 1<sup>st</sup> to 7<sup>th</sup> Respondents’ application for absolution from the instance and entering Judgment in favour of Respondents as per their claim in reconvention for cancellation of the suretyship agreements and Mortgage Bonds.</span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:72px; text-align:justify"> </p> <ol start="6"><li class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:32px; 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 court <i>a quo</i> erred in awarding costs against Appellant in respect of the Respondents’ claim in reconvention on a higher scale, when there was no legal basis for so doing.”</span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p class="CxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-top:16px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:4.5pt"><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">PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THIS COURT</span></span></span></u></b></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-top:16px; margin-left:42px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:49.5pt"><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">19.      Counsel for the second respondent, Mr <i>Uriri,</i> raised a preliminary point to the effect that the notice of appeal was fatally defective and incapable of amendment. On the other hand, counsel for the appellant, Mr <i>Mubaiwa,</i> made an application to amend the appellant’s grounds of appeal and relief sought. In making the application counsel argued that he was raising legal issues which would not prejudice the respondents.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-top:16px; margin-left:42px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-31.5pt"><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">20.     Counsel for the first, third to seventh respondents, Mr <i>Ncube,</i> agreed with Mr <i>Uriri</i> who opposed the application for the amendment and argued that the notice of appeal was not in compliance with r 37 (1) (d) as read with r 44 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2018 (‘the Supreme Court Rules’) in that the grounds of appeal were not clear and concise. Counsel argued that the 2<sup>nd</sup> ground of appeal was invalid as it was vague. He also submitted that the grounds of appeal attacked all the findings of the court <i>a quo</i> which rendered the notice of appeal fatally defective. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-top:16px; margin-left:42px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-31.5pt"> </p> <p style="margin-left:36px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-49.5pt"><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">        21.    As indicated above, Mr <i>Uriri</i> raised a preliminary point to the effect that the appellant’s grounds of appeal were not clear and concise and sought a striking off of the appeal.   </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:30px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-54.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:40.5pt"><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 further submitted that the relief sought by the appellant was defective as it did not pray for a remittal of the matter for continuation of the trial on the merits of the matter in the event that the appeal succeeds. Counsel submitted that this rendered the appeal fatally defective.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:42px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-31.5pt"> </p> <p style="margin-left:42px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-31.5pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:40.5pt"><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">22.    The amendment sought by the appellant was made by way of notice and in terms of the r 41 of the Supreme Court Rules. Rule 41 provides as follows:</span></span></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:115%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><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">“Power to allow amendment</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-left:96px; 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-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">41.The court may upon application by notice or upon oral application by counsel during the course of any hearing allow, upon such terms as it may think fit to impose, amendment of the grounds of appeal or of any pleadings or other document and may similarly permit a party to appear or be represented notwithstanding any declaration in terms of rule 50 to the effect that the party does not intend to appear or be represented.”</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-left:42px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-31.5pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:40.5pt"><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">23.    With regard to the issue of whether or not the appellant’s grounds of appeal were fatally defective on the basis that they were not clear and concise as required by the rules of this Court, we found that the grounds of appeal could have been more elegantly crafted, however, they were not fatally defective. This Court has pronounced itself on the test to be applied in determining whether or not grounds of appeal are valid.  In</span></span></span> <i><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">Zvokusekwa v Bikita Rural District Council </span></span></span></i><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">SC 44/15 the Court noted that:</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:96px; 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">“One must, I think, be guided by the substance of the grounds of appeal and not the form.  Legal practitioners often exhibit different styles in formulating such grounds.  What is important at the end of the day is that the grounds must disclose the basis upon which the decision of the lower court is impugned in a clear and concise manner.” </span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"> </p> <p style="margin-left:36px; 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">Also, in <i>Dr Kunonga v Church of the Province</i> <i>of Central Africa</i> SC 25/17 at pg 18 the Court stated that:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:96px; 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">“…where the court is faced by some of the grounds of appeal that are not clear and concise and by others that are, the courts should proceed to determine the appeal on the basis of the valid grounds.”</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"> </p> <p style="margin-top:16px; margin-left:42px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-31.5pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:54.0pt"><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">24.   The Court must be guided by the substance and not the form of the grounds of appeal. At the end of the day the determining factors of whether or not grounds of appeal are valid and compliant with the rules of the court can be set out as follows:</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <ol><li style="list-style-type:none"> <ol style="list-style-type:lower-alpha"><li style="margin-top:16px; margin-left:64px; 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 grounds of appeal must relate to the judgment appealed against, </span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-top:16px; margin-left:64px; 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">must clearly and concisely show how the decision of the court <i>a quo</i> is erroneous, and </span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-top:16px; margin-left:64px; 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">must show the basis upon which the decision should be vacated. </span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol></li> </ol><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">In this regard a proper reading of the appellant’s grounds of appeal clearly reveal the basis upon which the judgment of the court <i>a quo</i> is being challenged. The only ground of appeal which is unclear and meaningless and cannot be allowed to stand is ground 1.4. Indeed, it was accepted that the grounds could have been crafted in a more elegant manner. However, at the end of the day, it was our view that they met the threshold as set out in the rules and in the case authorities, except for ground 1.4 which we struck out. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-top:16px; margin-left:48px; 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">25.   The additional grounds of appeal in the notice of amendment were predicated on the same facts which were before the court <i>a quo</i>. The appellant in its heads of arguments had already made submissions on the basis of the amended grounds. The respondents had responded to the heads of argument. In the circumstances of this case, however it did not appear that the respondent would suffer any prejudice if the application was granted.  As the amendment was not prejudicial to the respondents and any prejudice could adequately be compensated with an appropriate order of costs, we saw no reason to refuse the application. </span></span></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: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 the basis of the above reasons we accordingly made the following order: </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:96px; 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 preliminary point raised by counsel for the respondents is dismissed. The application to amend the grounds of appeal and prayer is granted, save for ground 1.4 in the notice of amendment. The appellant is ordered to pay the respondents’ wasted costs.”</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-top:16px; margin-left:42px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-31.5pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:18.0pt 40.5pt"><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">26.    On the merits, counsel for the appellant argued that it was improper for the court <i>a quo</i> to grant counterclaims that were not filed in terms of r 121 of the High Court Rules, 1971 (‘the High Court Rules’). Counsel further argued that the judgment of the court made factual findings without hearing the evidence of the first respondent. The factual findings could only have been made after hearing the defence case. He also argued that the inference drawn by the court in respect of the statement of account was not the only inference in the circumstances of the case and, in any event did not prove that the debt owed by the respondents had been repaid. It was also counsel’s argument that the appellant proved a <i>prima facie</i> case in establishing that the loan facility was disbursed to the first respondent and it was for the respondents to prove that the loan was repaid in full. He prayed that the appeal be allowed with the matter being remitted to the court <i>a quo</i> for continuation of trial and an order for costs.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"> </p> <p style="margin-top:16px; margin-left:42px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-31.5pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:31.5pt 49.5pt"><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">27.     <i>Per contra</i>, counsel for the first, third to seventh respondents argued that the court <i>a quo</i> correctly found that the appellant failed to establish a <i>prima facie</i> case as there was no valid cause of action. Counsel further argued that the documentary evidence produced before the court <i>a quo</i> showed that the loan was repaid in full on 31 December 2015 and as such the appellant had no basis to sue. He also argued that the appellant’s witness Gunundu contradicted himself in his evidence and as such a <i>prima facie</i> case could not have had been established by the appellant. Counsel further argued that the purported sureties made in the names of the third to seventh respondents were invalid and void. Counsel prayed for the dismissal of the appeal. </span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-top:16px; margin-left:48px; 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">28.    Counsel for the second respondent also prayed for the dismissal of the appeal and argued that the appellant had no cause of action against the second respondent as no loan facility was ever advanced to it. Counsel submitted that the loan was repaid on 31 December 2015 and that the appellant had admitted that this was the position in evidence. He further submitted that there was no valid mortgage bond in the name of the second respondent upon which the appellant could execute.  The mortgage bond made by the second respondent in favour of the appellant related to a 2011 loan facility and not the 2015 loan facility. Counsel further maintained that the second respondent had only one director in Zimbabwe and as such no valid resolution could have been made in the absence of the second director. As such counsel argued that the power of attorney and mortgage bond were not properly executed. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:42px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-31.5pt"> </p> <p style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-left:36px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-27.0pt"><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">29.   It is my view that the appellant’s grounds of appeal raise a single issue, i.e. whether or not the court <i>a quo</i> erred in granting the application for absolution from the instance.</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><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">ANALYSIS </span></span></span></u></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">Whether or not the court <i>a quo</i> erred in granting the application for absolution from the instance.</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-top:16px; margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:40.5pt"><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">30.   The cause of action of the appellant against the first respondent was based on a credit facility dated 2 November 2015.  It was alleged that the first respondent had failed to repay the loan advanced to it under that facility. The cause of action as against the second to seventh respondents was based on the various surety and mortgage bonds filed of record which were made in favour of the appellant by the respondents at different times. The court <i>a quo</i> in granting the respondents’ application for absolution from the instance found that the loan advanced to the first respondent was repaid on 31 December 2015.  The basis of this finding was an accounting entry made by the appellant in its statement of accounts which showed a credit entry in the sum borrowed as having been paid.  On the basis of this entry the court reasoned that there was no cause of action upon which the appellant could claim as there was no outstanding debt.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-top:16px; margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="tab-stops:40.5pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"> </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:200%"><span style="tab-stops:54.0pt"><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">31.   The law to be applied in an application for absolution from the instance is well settled. In <i>United Air Charters (Pvt) Ltd v Jarman</i> 1994 (2) ZLR 341 (S) at pg 343 the Court held that:</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:96px; 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 test in deciding an application for absolution from the instance is well settled in this jurisdiction. A plaintiff will successfully withstand such an application if, at the close of his case, there is evidence upon which a court, directing its mind reasonably to such evidence, could or might (not should or ought to) find for him.” (see also <i>Oesthuizen v Standard General Versekeringsmaa &amp; Kappy BPK </i>1981 (A) 1035 (H)).</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-left:42px; 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 <i>Gordon Lloyd Page &amp; Associates and Rireira &amp; Another</i> 2001 (1) SA 88 (SCA) at 92 E-93 A it was held that:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:96px; 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 test for absolution to be applied by a trial court at the end of plaintiff’s case was formulated in <i>Claude neon Lights (SA) Ltd v Daniel</i> 1976 (4) SA 403 (A) at 409 G-H in these terms‘… when absolution from the instance at the close of plaintiff’s case, the test to be applied is not whether the evidence led by the plaintiff established what would finally be required to be established but whether there is evidence upon which a court applying its mind reasonably to such evidence could or might (not should or ought) find for the plaintiff…<u>’This implies that the plaintiff has to make out a <i>prima facie</i> case in the sense that there is evidence relating to all elements of the claim</u>…”</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-top:16px; margin-left:42px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-31.5pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:49.5pt"><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">32.   Absolution from the instance is thus granted by the court when an application has been made by a defendant at the close of a plaintiff’s case who fails to prove a <i>prima facie</i> case.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:30px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-left:30px; 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">A<i> prima facie </i>case was noted in <i>Fillieks and Others v S</i> [2014] ZAWHC 34 as follows:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:96px; 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">“<i>Prima facie</i> evidence in its more usual sense, is used to mean <i>prima facie</i> proof of an issue the burden of proving which is upon the party giving that evidence. In the absence of further evidence from the other side, the <i>prima facie</i> proof becomes conclusive and the party giving it discharges his onus…”</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-top:16px; margin-left:36px; 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 granting the application for absolution from the instance the court <i>a quo</i> thus had to be guided by the question of whether or not the appellant made out a <i>prima facie</i> case against the respondents on the basis of which the court could or might have found for the appellant. The appellant’s cause of action was based on the credit facility which it advanced to the first respondent on the 2<sup>nd</sup> of November 2015 for the sum of US$ 350 000. The purpose of the facility was to assist the first respondent in financing its working capital requirements. The facility further provided under clause 6 that the security for the amount advanced as the loan was secured by sureties and mortgage bonds registered in the names of the respondents in favour of the appellant. Under clause 12 of the facility all previous facility letters advanced to the first respondent by the appellant were cancelled.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-top:16px; margin-left:36px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-27.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:54.0pt"><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">33.  The accounting statements of the appellant filed of record show that, on 17 November 2015 under transaction number LD1532460482 and described as “Loan Drawdown”, the appellant credited the first respondent’s account with the sum of US$ 350 000. On the 30<sup>th</sup> of December 2015 under transaction number LD1532460482 and described as “Payment of Principal”, the sum of US$ 350 000 was reversed from the first respondent’s account into the appellant’s account.  The first respondent remained with a debit balance of US$375 671.35. </span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:36px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-27.0pt"> </p> <p style="margin-left:36px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-27.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="tab-stops:54.0pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"> </span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:36px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-31.5pt"><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">34.   The appellant’s witness, Gunundu, explained that the first entry meant that the appellant was crediting the first respondent with the proceeds of the loan. The second entry showed that those proceeds were meant to pay off an existing debt that the first respondent already had with the bank. It is important to quote the exchange between counsel for the appellant and the witness where he states that:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:96px; 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">“Q. If you move further down you will see that the same $350 000.00 appears on that page? A. Yes the second entry for $350 000.00 which in this instance now appears as a debit on the borrowers account was passed on 30<sup>th</sup> December 2015. The second entry that was passed by the bank on the 30<sup>th</sup> of December 2015 for 350 000.00 entailed that the bank was now debiting the customer’s account to confirm that this was now a new loan agreement with terms as contained in the facility letter offer of 2<sup>nd</sup> November 2015.”</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-top:16px; margin-left:42px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-31.5pt"><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">35.   The first respondent however maintained the argument <i>a quo</i> and before this Court that the loan was repaid on the 30<sup>th</sup> of December 2015 under the transaction description of “Payment of Principal”. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-top:16px; margin-left:42px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-9.0pt"><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">  On the basis of the above exchange, the court <i>a quo </i>found that the witness of the appellant did not establish its claim at all. The court concluded that Gunundu was not a credible witness and found that the appellant had failed to make out a <i>prima facie</i> case upon which the respondents could be placed on their defence. It is our view, however, that the court <i>a quo</i> fell into error in arriving at this finding.  </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-top:16px; margin-left:36px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-27.0pt"><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">36.   It should be noted from the onset that the appellant and the first respondent have had a long standing relationship of a banking nature. The record shows that from 2011 to 2015 when the credit facility which is the subject of this appeal was entered into, the appellant was advancing the first respondent different loan facilities and overdrafts. These loan facilities were advanced on the basis of the securities which were made by the second to seventh respondents.  For over 5 years the appellant was advancing money to the first respondent on the basis of those securities with no issues arising. Emails filed of record further show correspondence between the third respondent, the first respondent’s Finance Manager one Jill Ngwerume Gunundu on behalf of the appellant and Nyangulu, which correspondence shows how some of the securities were registered. Emails between Rodney Callaghan and Darryn Blumears (acting on behalf of the second respondent) are also part of the record which shows the parties acknowledging that certain sums of money were owed and that the respondents would raise money to pay the debts. Although these emails were written in 2013 to 2014, this confirms the nature of the relationship between the appellant and the respondents, and that as at 2014 there was a debt owed to the appellant.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-top:16px; margin-left:36px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-27.0pt"><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">37. Having found that there existed a banking relationship between the appellant the respondents, the next question relates to the credit facility advanced to the first respondent on 2 November 2015 and whether or not that facility was repaid.  There is no documentary evidence in the record which shows that the first respondent wrote to the appellant seeking a refinancing loan to cover its existing debts. However, given the history between the parties on how the appellant advanced several loans to the first respondent over the years, it can be taken that the first respondent must have approached the appellant seeking a loan to repay its outstanding debts. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-top:16px; margin-left:42px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-31.5pt"><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">38.  A reading of the appellant’s accounting statement shows that before the “loan drawdown” was made to the first respondent’s account the account showed a debit balance of US$ 367 981.74. When the loan sum was deposited the balance was reduced to US$ 17 981.74. This means that the loan reduced an existing debt. When the loan was reversed back to the appellant’s account on 30 December 2015 the balance returned to US$ 375 671.35.  This summary shows that the loan was advanced by the appellant to refinance an existing debt. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:42px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-31.5pt"> </p> <p style="margin-top:16px; margin-left:42px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-31.5pt"><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">39.   The credit facility, though not clearly labelled as a refinancing loan, appears to have been made in order to give the first respondent time to repay the loan.  This explains the creation of a repayment plan on how the first respondent would repay its debt.  In my view, the credit facility, though not specified as a refinancing loan, must have been made for the purpose of extending the period in which the first respondent had to repay its debts. It is important to borrow the words quoted with approval by Gubbay CJ in <i>Chikoma v Mukweza</i> 1998 (1) ZLR 541 (SC) at pg 544 wherein the Court noted that:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-top:16px; margin-left:96px; 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">“Not to be overlooked, as well, are the wise words of Lord Wright in <i>Hillas &amp; Co Ltd v Arcos Ltd </i>[1932] All ER Rep 494 (HL) at 503I; (1932) 147 LT 503 (HL) at 514: </span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-top:16px; margin-left:144px; 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">‘Businessmen often record the most important agreements in crude and summary fashion; modes of expression sufficient and clear to them in the course of their business may appear to those unfamiliar with the business far from complete or precise. It is accordingly, the duty of the court to construe such documents fairly and broadly, without being too astute or subtle in finding defects; but, on the contrary, the court should seek to apply the old maxim of English law,<i> verba ita sunt intelligenda ut res magis valeat quam pereat.</i>’</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-top:16px; margin-left:96px; 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">See also <i>Burroughs Machines Ltd v Chenille Corp of SA (Pty) Ltd</i> 1964 (1) SA 669 (W) at 670G-H.”</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-top:16px; margin-left:96px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-left:42px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-31.5pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:45.0pt"><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">40.    Thus, essentially what was before the court <i>a quo</i> was a claim for the repayment of a loan. The appellant had a duty, after all the evidence had been led by both appellant and the respondents, to prove its case on a balance of probabilities. </span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-top:16px; margin-left:48px; 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">41.    The argument in the respondents’ plea that the loan was repaid in less than a month does not carry much weight and is an argument which the respondents had to prove in evidence. It is important to note that there was nothing in the record showing a deposit from the respondents to indicate that the first respondent had paid off the loan.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-top:16px; margin-left:36px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-31.5pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:45.0pt"><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">42.   The court <i>a quo</i> fell into error in making its decision solely on the entry made on 30 December 2015 in the appellant’s statement of account. That entry had to be read in conjunction with all the facts of the matter and the banking history which existed between the parties. The first respondent never denied owing the appellant but rather denied the sum claimed by the appellant and averred in its plea that if at all it owed the bank its debit balance was less than US$ 109 000. All these are issues which the court <i>a quo</i> could not determine without putting the first respondent to its defence.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:45.0pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"> </span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:30px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-27.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:45.0pt"><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">43.   The court <i>a quo</i> further erred in making a finding that the appellant’s witness was not a credible witness in circumstances when it had not heard evidence from the respondents. This was a clear error as there was nothing upon which the court could measure the appellant’s evidence. In <i>Megalink Investments (Pvt) Ltd v Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe</i> HH 4/17 at pg 5 the court held that:</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:96px; 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">“I need to point out, too, that at this stage the court is not so much concerned with questions of the credibility of the witnesses and the probabilities of the case as there is nothing to measure those aspects against in the absence of the defendant’s evidence. The court at this stage is presented with only one side of the story which alone must be examined to determine whether the requirements for absolution have been satisfied.”</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-left:96px; 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">In the case of <i>Professor Charles</i> <i>Nherera v Jayesh Shah</i> SC 51/19, GARWE JA as he then was, quoted the case of <i>Supreme Service Station 1969 (Pvt) Ltd v Fox &amp; Goodridge (Pvt) Ltd</i> 1971 (1) ZLR 1, in which BEADLE CJ highlighted some of the considerations that a court, faced with an application for absolution from the instance, ought to bear in mind.  He pointed out that the court should always bear in mind that the defendant has not yet given evidence, or been cross-examined.  Thus, the court should not dismiss the plaintiff’s evidence unless it is glaringly incredible.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-top:16px; margin-left:42px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-31.5pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:45.0pt"><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">44.   The court <i>a quo</i> thus misdirected itself by making a finding on the credibility of the appellant’s witnesses in the absence of evidence from the respondents’ witnesses. Gunundu explained how the transactions under the credit facilities were made and how they operated. He further explained how the appellant had always worked with the first respondent in trust and on the basis of the securities which had been lodged with the bank by the first respondent over the years. It seems to me that his evidence was sufficient to establish a <i>prima facie</i> case for the appellant with regard to whether or not the respondent owed the appellant.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-top:16px; margin-left:36px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-27.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:31.5pt 40.5pt"><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">45.   It is common cause that the respondents agreed to be sureties and co-principal debtors in the event that the first respondent failed to repay the appellant. The security documents are part of the record. They have the signatures of the respondents. In making its claim in reconvention <i>a quo</i> the second respondent averred that the mortgage bonds in favour of the appellant were fraudulently acquired by the appellant. </span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:36px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-27.0pt"> </p> <p style="margin-top:16px; margin-left:42px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-31.5pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:45.0pt"><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">           Nyangulu testified on how he processed the registration of the mortgage bonds through the bank. Counsel for the second respondent however put him to task on the effect of the mortgage bonds registered against the second respondent’s property in favour of the appellant. The court <i>a quo</i> reasoned that, as Nyangulu had admitted under cross examination that there may have been shortcomings in the manner in which the mortgage bonds were registered, therefore they were invalid.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:42px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-31.5pt"> </p> <p style="margin-top:16px; margin-left:36px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-31.5pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:40.5pt"><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">46.   However, the record shows that as at 29 May 2014 Darryn Blumears, in an email to Rodney Callaghan, was having conversations as to “a figure breakdown for the loan against Pagomo”. Pagomo was one of the properties upon which a mortgage bond was registered by the second respondent in favour of the appellant. On the same day, in an email from Rodney Callaghan to Darryn Blumears, he was informed that: “The total loan is $450 000 to NMB of which $325 000 is against Pagomo and the balance of $125 000 is against Tarlington Road.” This email is just but one of the correspondence in the record which suggest that there existed debts between the first respondent and the appellant and that those debts were covered by securities in the form of sureties and mortgages. This evidence in my view shows that there was an acceptance by the respondents that the loans were covered by the sureties and mortgage bonds. Thus, any denial of the proposition by the appellant that the mortgage bonds were valid should have been contradicted by the respondents in evidence.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="tab-stops:40.5pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"> </span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-top:16px; margin-left:42px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-31.5pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:40.5pt"><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">47.   It should also be noted that in making their pleas <i>a quo</i>, the respondents jointly made averments with regards to the sureties and mortgage bonds. Of note are the material allegations made by the respondents that the surety signed by the second respondent was signed by the daughter of the third and fourth respondents without a valid board resolution for her to do so. Further, the acknowledgment of debt was not signed by the first respondent and that an official of the appellant fraudulently made the third and fourth respondent’s daughter sign as surety on behalf of the second respondent. It was further averred that the appellant thus registered unauthorised mortgage bonds against the second respondent. All these averments made by the respondents in their pleas raise issues which were disputed by the appellant and therefore needed to be proved by way of <i>viva voce</i> evidence from the respondents. As such the court <i>a quo</i> could not grant absolution, as it did, without allowing the respondents to take to the stand to prove their claims.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:42px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-27.0pt"> </p> <p style="margin-left:42px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-27.0pt"> </p> <p style="margin-left:42px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-31.5pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:49.5pt"><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">48.  The court <i>a quo</i> in making its determination found that the first and third to seventh respondents made claims in reconvention as to the invalidity of the sureties in their names. However, as submitted by counsel for the appellant, these respondents did not make any claims in reconvention in their pleas. The claim in reconvention which is in the record relates only to the second respondent. No amendment to the claim in reconvention was made to show that this was to cover all the respondents. As such the court <i>a quo</i> was clearly wrong and made a determination on an issue which was not properly placed before it. Rule 121 (1) of the High Court Rules provides that:</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:96px; 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 claim in reconvention shall be so described and shall be bound and filed with the defendant’s plea.”</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:30px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-22.5pt"><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">49.   Only the second respondent properly made its claim in reconvention in its plea. The rest of the respondents only filed a notice of application to amend their pleas and claims in reconvention on the 30<sup>th</sup> of May 2017. The respondents’ notice stated that at the pre-trial conference the respondents would apply to amend the pleas and make claims in reconvention. The record does not reflect whether or not the application for an amendment was motivated and if it was granted. More specifically, there is no order in the record to show that the amendment was granted at the pre-trial conference. The Pre Trial Conference Minute is also silent on this issue. It seems to us that the court <i>a quo</i> could not make any finding on claims which were never raised in the papers before it by the respondents.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:30px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-22.5pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"> </span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:30px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-22.5pt"><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">50.   A court must determine a matter based on the papers and evidence placed before it by the parties. It cannot go on a frolic of its own (see</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">Nzara and Ors v Kashumba N.O. and Ors </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">SC 18/18 at pg 13). The court <i>a quo</i> fell into error when it granted claims in reconvention which were not properly pleaded by the respondents.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"> </span></span></p> <p style="margin-top:16px; margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:27.0pt 49.5pt"><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">51.  The sureties and mortgage bonds were signed by the respondents and they all had a provision for unlimited cover. The question of whether these sureties and mortgages were valid can only be answered when the issue of whether or not the first respondent owes the appellant the claimed sum of money has been answered. The invalidity of the security documents is an issue which the respondents should prove in their defence. In the same way that the appellant made its case that the security documents were valid as they were always used by the first respondent in acquiring loans over the years and were never questioned by the second to seventh respondents as being invalid, so too must the respondents show that the security documents were invalid and cannot relate to the loan facility dated 2 November 2015.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="tab-stops:36.0pt 49.5pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"> </span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-top:16px; margin-left:42px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-31.5pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:40.5pt"><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">52.   It is thus imperative that the court <i>a quo </i>makes a determination on whether or not the first respondent is liable to repay the loan advanced to it by the appellant on 2 November 2015. The determination will deal with the issue of whether or not the suretyships and mortgage bonds in favour of the appellant are valid or invalid. As long as the suretyships remained signed with a provision that they are of an unlimited nature and the appellant remains in possession of the title deeds to the properties under the mortgage bonds, the security documents must be held as being valid. A final resolution of the matter can only be made after the defence case is heard. </span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-top:16px; margin-left:42px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-31.5pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="tab-stops:40.5pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"> </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"><b><u><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></u></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:42px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-31.5pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:27.0pt 40.5pt"><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">53.   The court <i>a quo</i> misdirected itself in granting the respondents’ application for absolution from the instance in a case where the appellant had made a <i>prima facie</i> case upon which judgment might or could have been entered in its favour. The court <i>a quo</i> also erred in cancelling the surety and mortgage agreement in circumstances where there were no counterclaims filed by the third to seventh respondents seeking such relief. The justice of the case was one which required that the respondents be put to their defence.  The appellant, having succeeded in the appeal, is entitled to its costs.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:42px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-31.5pt"> </p> <p style="margin-left:42px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-31.5pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:27.0pt 40.5pt"><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">   <b>  </b>In the result, it is ordered as follows:</span></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:94.5pt"><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">The appeal be and is hereby allowed with costs.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:86px; 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">The judgment of the court <i>a quo</i> is set aside and substituted with the following:</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:180px; 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 defendants’ application for absolution from the instance and second defendant’s application for its claim in reconvention to be granted at the close of the plaintiff’s case be and are hereby dismissed with costs.”</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:72px; text-align:justify"> </p> <ol start="3"><li style="margin-left:86px; 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">The matter is hereby remitted to the court <i>a quo</i> for continuation of trial.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:126px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-left:126px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"> </span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt; 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">GARWE JA              :           </span></span></span></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">            I agree</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"> </p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt; margin-bottom:11px"> </p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt; 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">PATEL JA                :</span></span></span></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">                       I agree</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt; margin-bottom:11px"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><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">Sawyer &amp; Mkushi</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">, appellant’s legal practitioners </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><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">Sheshe &amp; Mutonono Attorneys</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>3<sup>rd</sup> -7<sup>th</sup> respondent’s legal practitioners</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"> </span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><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">Thompson Stevenson &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">, 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-a780e96b75caeeead4b9d4459fcb677a821e76735435a3784c2c2256fac9e01b"> <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">Judgment No. SC 31/22</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">Civil Appeal No. SC 754/18</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: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   (27)</span></span></span></u></b></span></span></span></p> <p align="center" style="text-align:center"> </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">NMB     BANK     LIMITED</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> <ol><li align="center" style="text-align:center; margin-left:8px"><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">     FORMSCAFF     (PRIVATE)     LIMITED      (2)      PENNIWILL      (PRIVATE)     LIMITED      (3)      RODNEY      CALLAGHAN      (4)      MILLICENT     TERESA     CALLAGHAN     (5)     CHARLES     CANNINGS     (6) CLIFFORD     JOHNSON     (7)      LESLEY     BENNET</span></span></b></span></span></span></li> </ol><p align="center" style="text-align:center; margin-bottom:11px"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">SUPREME COURT OF ZIMBABWE</span></span></b></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">GARWE JA, PATEL JA &amp; GUVAVA JA</span></span></b></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">HARARE, 17 OCTOBER 2019 &amp; 25 FEBRUARY 2022</span></span></b></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"> </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-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">E. Mubaiwa</span></span></span></i><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">, 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-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">W. Ncube</span></span></span></i><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">, for the 1<sup>st</sup>, 3<sup>rd</sup> - 7<sup>th</sup> respondents</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-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">L. Uriri, </span></span></span></i><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">for the 2<sup>nd</sup> respondent</span></span></span></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"><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">GUVAVA JA</span></span></span></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">:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <ol><li class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:2px; 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"> This is an appeal against the whole judgment of the High Court (court <i>a quo</i>) dated 18 October 2018. The court <i>a quo</i> granted an application for absolution from the instance made jointly by the respondents, granted claims in reconvention and ordered the appellant to pay costs of the counterclaims on a legal practitioner and client scale.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:42px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"> </span></span></p> <ol start="2"><li class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:8px; 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">The court <i>a quo</i> erred in this regard and the appellant was correctly aggrieved by the judgment of the court <i>a quo</i>. There is no evidence in the record that first, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh respondents had filed counterclaims and the court <i>a quo</i> erred in granting counterclaims that were not before the court. Although the second respondent was properly before the court <i>a quo</i> the requirements for the grant of absolution from the instance were not met.  Accordingly, the judgment must be vacated. I set out hereunder the reasons for this finding.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify; text-indent:18.0pt"><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">BACKGROUND FACTS</span></span></span></u></b></span></span></span></p> <ol start="3"><li class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:8px; 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 is a registered commercial bank operating in Zimbabwe. The first respondent is a private company registered in accordance with the laws of Zimbabwe. The third to seventh respondents are private individuals who bound themselves as sureties and co-principal debtors in respect of a loan granted to the first respondent.  The second respondent is a private limited company duly incorporated in Zimbabwe.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"> </span></span></p> <ol start="4"><li class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:8px; 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 issued summons against the respondents on 13 March 2017 for the payment of US$ 368 706.62 being capital and US$ 20 654.10 being interest on the sum of US$ 368 706.62 at the rate of 18% per annum, which rate was subject to change from time to time, with effect from 26 November 2016 to date of payment in full and costs of suit on a legal practitioner and client scale. At the commencement of trial, by consent of the parties, the claim was amended to read as follows:</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-top:16px; margin-left:96px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><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">“(i) by deletion of the capital amount of US$ 368 706.62 and the substitution thereof with the amount of US$ 361 034.23.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-top:16px; margin-left:96px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><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">(ii) by deletion of the interest amount of US$ 20 654.10 and the substitution thereof with the amount US$ 28 246.49.”</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-top:16px; margin-left:96px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-top:16px; margin-left:54px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-40.5pt"><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">5.     The total amount claimed by the appellant amounted to US$ 389 362.72. In its particulars of claim the appellant averred that in or around November 2015, the appellant and the first respondent entered into an agreement in terms of which the appellant extended to the first respondent a loan for the sum of US$ 373 000.00.  The loan was accessed through the first respondent’s operating account and was for the purpose of assisting the first respondent in financing its working capital requirements.  Interest was to accrue on the facility at the rate of 12% per annum subject to change from time to time and 18% per annum in the event of default by the first respondent in making due and punctual payment of any instalment.  The loan advanced was repayable to the appellant as follows:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><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) US$ 2 000.00 on the 30<sup>th</sup> November 2015</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><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">             (b) US$ 1 500.00 on the 30<sup>th</sup> December 2015</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><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">             (c) US$ 2 000.00 on the 30<sup>th</sup> January 2016</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:108px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-9.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><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 thereafter, US$ 15 200.00 per month with effect from the 28<sup>th</sup> of February 2016 until full payment.”</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:108px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-9.0pt"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-top:16px; margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-27.0pt"><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">6.    It was a term of the agreement that in the event of the first respondent defaulting in making due and punctual payment of any instalment, the total outstanding amount would immediately become due and payable.   The second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh respondents bound themselves jointly and severally as sureties and co-principal debtors with the first respondent for payment of any and all monies due to the appellant. The respondents defaulted in making due payment of the loan under the agreement giving rise to the total outstanding amount claimed by the appellant of US$ 389 362.72.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"> </span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-top:16px; margin-left:48px; 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">7.       All the respondents jointly entered an appearance to defend and in their plea denied that the amount claimed by the appellant arose from the agreement dated 2 November 2015. The first respondent denied owing the appellant any money as it argued that the loan advanced through the loan agreement was repaid in full on the 30<sup>th</sup> of December 2015. The first respondent further denied owing the appellant any interest under the loan facility and maintained that the appellant actually recovered more interest from it than was lawfully due. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-top:16px; margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:40.5pt"><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">8.      The second to the seventh respondents averred that all the suretyship deeds held by the appellant were void for vagueness as they covered an unlimited liability. They contended that a suretyship deed must contain a limit in monetary terms so as to be valid.  The second respondent averred that the deed of suretyship between it and the appellant was void as it was not authorised by its board of directors. The first respondent further stated that the acknowledgment of debt executed by it in favour of the appellant was unenforceable as it was not signed by its representatives. The second respondent also averred that it never authorised the registration of a mortgage bond in favour of the appellant over its property known as Subdivision A of Subdivision H of N’Thaba of Glen Lorne situate in the District of Salisbury held under Deed of Transfer number 1998/95 (‘the property’).</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-27.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="tab-stops:40.5pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"> </span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-top:16px; margin-left:42px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-31.5pt"><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"> 9.     Together with its plea, the second respondent filed a claim in reconvention against the appellant and averred that the appellant fraudulently procured a suretyship and mortgage bond in its favour over the second respondent’s property. The second respondent prayed that the suretyship deed and mortgage bond be cancelled. The appellant entered a plea against the claim in reconvention and denied all the averments made by the respondents.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-top:16px; margin-left:42px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-31.5pt"><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">10.     On 30 May 2017, the third to seventh respondents indicated their intention to apply to amend their pleas and file a claim in reconvention at the pre-trial conference. The amendments sought alleged that all the respondents’ purported suretyships had expired by effluxion of time, having been signed more than three years before the loan was granted. It was also averred that the suretyships were in contravention of s 12 of the Moneylending and Rates of Interest Act [<i>Chapter 14: 14</i>] (‘the Moneylending Act’) and as such were invalid and unenforceable. In the proposed claim in reconvention, the third to seventh respondents sought an order that their respective suretyships be declared null and void. The second, third and fourth respondents prayed that the mortgage bonds in their names be cancelled.  There is, however, no evidence in the record that the amendment was ever granted at the pre- trial conference or at the trial.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:42px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-31.5pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"> </span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:42px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-31.5pt"><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">11.     On 27 July 2017, the parties signed a Joint Pre-Trial Conference Minute and the issues for determination by the court <i>a quo</i> were stated as follows:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:126px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-27.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><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">“1. Whether 2<sup>nd</sup>, 3<sup>rd</sup>, 4<sup>th</sup>, 5<sup>th</sup>, 6<sup>th</sup>, and 7<sup>th</sup> Defendants’ deeds of Suretyship are valid and enforceable.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <ol><li class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-top:16px; margin-left:80px; 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-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Whether 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendant’s 1<sup>st</sup> and 2<sup>nd</sup> Mortgage Bonds (numbers 1557/13 and 1656/13) in favour of Plaintiff are valid and enforceable or whether they should be cancelled. </span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-top:16px; margin-left:80px; 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-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Whether 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant is indebted to Plaintiff under the Loan Agreement dated 2 November 2015 in the sums of US$ 368 706.62 as capital and US$ 20 654.10 as interest and was there novation or termination of the loan agreement. </span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-top:16px; margin-left:80px; 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-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Whether 1<sup>st</sup>, 2<sup>nd</sup>, 3<sup>rd</sup>, 4<sup>th</sup>, 5<sup>th</sup>, 6<sup>th</sup> and 7<sup>th</sup> Defendants, jointly and severally one paying the others to be absolved are indebted to Plaintiff as alleged or at all.”</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-top:16px; margin-left:120px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-top:16px; margin-left:72px; 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">12.    At the trial, the appellant led evidence through two witnesses, namely, Mr. C. Gunundu (Gunundu) the appellant’s Account Relationship Manager and Mr. V.S. Nyangulu (Nyangulu) a registered legal practitioner and conveyancer.  Gunundu testified that the appellant and the first respondent had a long business history spanning many years. They agreed that the bank would advance a loan to the first respondent which loan would, in turn, re-finance the existing loan already held by the first respondent. He further testified that the first respondent and its sureties had failed on numerous occasions to fulfil the loan obligations which it owed to the appellant. The new arrangement was meant to assist the respondents. Gunundu maintained that the surety deeds and mortgage bonds made by the second to seventh respondents in the appellant’s favour were all valid and properly constituted. He further maintained that the sureties were open and unlimited and as such covered all the money obtained through loans by the first respondent from the appellant.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-top:16px; margin-left:66px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-49.5pt"><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">13.       The second witness, Nyangulu, testified that the mortgage bonds he registered on behalf of the second respondent in favour of the appellant were valid and were registered after due process and board resolutions had been passed. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-top:16px; margin-left:54px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-40.5pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:31.5pt 45.0pt"><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"> 14.      At the close of the appellant’s case, the first to seventh respondents made an application for absolution from the instance. In making the application the first and third to seventh respondents averred that the appellant sued the respondents on a cause of action which had already been discharged on 31 December 2015.  They also alleged that their sureties were not valid. In making its application the second<sup></sup>respondent averred that the appellant failed to prove a valid cause of action that the mortgage bonds against its property, registered in favour of the appellant, were valid. </span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-top:16px; margin-left:48px; 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">15.     In response to the applications for absolution from the instance, the appellant argued that the applications were frivolous.  It vehemently denied receiving any payment from the first respondent in repayment of the loan. It also maintained that all the documents in respect of the security for the loan were valid and that the obligation of the sureties had not been extinguished by prescription or on any other basis. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-top:16px; margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:18.0pt 40.5pt"><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">16.    The court <i>a quo</i>, in dealing with the matter, found that the appellant’s first witness Gunundu was not a credible witness and that he contradicted himself on material issues. The court further found that the appellant failed to prove a <i>prima facie</i> case against the respondents.  The court went on to find that the first respondent repaid the loan of US$ 350 000 on 31 December 2015 as evidenced by the appellant’s own books of account and statements. The court <i>a quo</i> also found that the suretyships made in favour of the appellant by the second to seventh respondents were invalid and unenforceable as they were not in compliance with s 12 of the Moneylending Act. Further, that the sureties did not relate to the 2 November 2015 loan facility and as such could not be relied upon by the appellant in making a cause of action for the repayment of a loan under that facility. </span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-top:16px; margin-left:42px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:45.0pt"><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">17.    The court <i>a quo</i> further held that the mortgage bonds executed in the second respondent’s name were invalid as they were not made in compliance with the law and that the sureties and mortgage bonds could not be held to have an unlimited clause to their operation as such a clause was contrary to public policy. The court concluded that, as the appellant had failed to prove a <i>prima facie</i> case against the respondents, the respondents’ claims in reconvention had merit and that there was no need to put the respondents to their defence. In the result the court made the following order:</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-top:16px; margin-left:138px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-31.5pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="tab-stops:99.0pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><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">“1. The application for absolution from the instance made by the defendants succeeds with costs.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-top:16px; margin-left:138px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-22.5pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="tab-stops:90.0pt 94.5pt 103.5pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><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">2. The surety ships (<i>sic</i>) in favour of the plaintiff entered into by 2<sup>nd</sup>, 3<sup>rd</sup>, 4<sup>th</sup>, 5<sup>th</sup>, 6<sup>th</sup> and 7<sup>th</sup> defendant and plaintiff be and are hereby cancelled.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-top:16px; margin-left:132px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-22.5pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="tab-stops:76.5pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><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">3. The mortgage bonds passed by 2<sup>nd</sup>, 3<sup>rd</sup> and 4<sup>th</sup> defendants in favour of plaintiff namely Numbers 2416/2011, 4889/2011, 1557/2013 and 1656/2013 be and are hereby cancelled. </span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-top:16px; margin-left:120px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-18.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><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">4. The plaintiff to pay costs of counterclaim to the defendants on attorney-client scale.”</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:120px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-18.0pt"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-top:16px; margin-left:48px; 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-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">18.    Dissatisfied with the decision of the court <i>a quo</i>, the appellant noted the present appeal on the following grounds of appeal:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:84px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-9.0pt; margin-bottom:11px"><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">“1. The court <i>a quo</i> erred in holding that any amounts   which were due to Appellant under the agreement dated 2 November 2015, were repaid in full and that Plaintiff sued on a cause of action that was discharged in full on the 30<sup>th</sup> of December 2015, in so doing, the court <i>a quo</i> failed to appreciate that the agreement (dated 2 November 2015) was entered into to enable the 1<sup>st</sup> respondent to settle previously existing debts. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <ol><li style="list-style-type:none"> <ol><li style="margin-left:46px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="tab-stops:81.0pt"><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 <i>a quo</i> erred in strictly evaluating and rejecting the appellant’s evidence and effectively demanding of it more than a <i>prima facie</i> (<i>sic</i>) as if it had (sic) evidence from defendants.  </span></span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:46px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="tab-stops:94.5pt"><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 <i>a quo</i> erred in granting respondents 1, 3 to 7 counter-claims which were not before it.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:52px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="tab-stops:94.5pt"><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 <i>a quo</i> erred in granting the counter-claims by respondents 1, 3 to 7 when those respondents had not moved it to grant same as at that stage.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:52px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="tab-stops:99.0pt"><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 <i>a quo</i> erred in itself cancelling the parties’ agreements when it was not a party thereto and in violation of the sanctity thereof.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol></li> <li class="CxSpFirst" style="margin-left:32px; 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 court <i>a quo</i> erred in holding that:</span></span></span></span></li> </ol><ol style="list-style-type:lower-alpha"><li class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:104px; 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 Suretyship agreements executed by 2<sup>nd</sup>, 3<sup>rd</sup>, 4<sup>th</sup>, 5<sup>th</sup>, 6<sup>th</sup> and 7<sup>th</sup> Respondents did not relate to the agreement dated 2 November 2015, and that neither did they cover any amounts due thereunder.</span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:144px; text-align:justify"> </p> <ol start="2" style="list-style-type:lower-alpha"><li class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:110px; 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 Suretyship agreements had prescribed. In so holding, the court <i>a quo</i> grossly failed to appreciate that at law, a Surety’s obligations only arise upon demand.</span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:132px; text-align:justify"> </p> <ol start="3" style="list-style-type:lower-alpha"><li class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:110px; 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 2<sup>nd</sup>, 3<sup>rd</sup>,4<sup>th</sup> ,5<sup>th</sup>,6<sup>th</sup> and 7<sup>th</sup> Respondents were released from their Suretyship due to material variation of the principal obligation, when this was not pleaded and no evidence proving actual prejudice was placed.</span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:150px; text-align:justify"> </p> <ol start="4" style="list-style-type:lower-alpha"><li class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:110px; 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">That 2<sup>nd</sup>, 3<sup>rd</sup>, 4<sup>th</sup>,5<sup>th</sup>, 6<sup>th</sup> and 7<sup>th</sup> Respondents’ suretyship agreements were void for being contrary to public policy.</span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:120px; text-align:justify"> </p> <ol start="3"><li class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:32px; 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">In agreeing with 2<sup>nd</sup>, 3<sup>rd</sup>, 4<sup>th</sup>, 5<sup>th</sup>, 6<sup>th</sup> and 7<sup>th</sup> Respondents’ entire submissions on the application for absolution from the instance, the court <i>a quo</i> grossly erred in holding 2<sup>nd</sup> to 7<sup>th</sup> Respondents’ averment that the suretyship agreements are invalid for violation of Section 12 of the Money Lending (<i>sic</i>) and Rates of Interest Act [<i>Chapter 14:14</i>].</span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:72px; text-align:justify"> </p> <ol start="4"><li class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:32px; 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 court <i>a quo</i> erred in holding that the Mortgage Bond passed by 2<sup>nd</sup> Respondent, and 3<sup>rd</sup> and 4<sup>th</sup> Respondents are invalid and grossly failed to appreciate that at law, the Mortgage Bonds are valid as an instrument of both debt and hypothecation.</span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:72px; text-align:justify"> </p> <ol start="5"><li class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:32px; 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">Consequent to the gross misdirection referred to in Paragraph 1, 2,3 and 4 above, the court <i>a quo</i> erred in granting 1<sup>st</sup> to 7<sup>th</sup> Respondents’ application for absolution from the instance and entering Judgment in favour of Respondents as per their claim in reconvention for cancellation of the suretyship agreements and Mortgage Bonds.</span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:72px; text-align:justify"> </p> <ol start="6"><li class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:32px; 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 court <i>a quo</i> erred in awarding costs against Appellant in respect of the Respondents’ claim in reconvention on a higher scale, when there was no legal basis for so doing.”</span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p class="CxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-top:16px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:4.5pt"><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">PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THIS COURT</span></span></span></u></b></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-top:16px; margin-left:42px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:49.5pt"><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">19.      Counsel for the second respondent, Mr <i>Uriri,</i> raised a preliminary point to the effect that the notice of appeal was fatally defective and incapable of amendment. On the other hand, counsel for the appellant, Mr <i>Mubaiwa,</i> made an application to amend the appellant’s grounds of appeal and relief sought. In making the application counsel argued that he was raising legal issues which would not prejudice the respondents.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-top:16px; margin-left:42px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-31.5pt"><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">20.     Counsel for the first, third to seventh respondents, Mr <i>Ncube,</i> agreed with Mr <i>Uriri</i> who opposed the application for the amendment and argued that the notice of appeal was not in compliance with r 37 (1) (d) as read with r 44 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2018 (‘the Supreme Court Rules’) in that the grounds of appeal were not clear and concise. Counsel argued that the 2<sup>nd</sup> ground of appeal was invalid as it was vague. He also submitted that the grounds of appeal attacked all the findings of the court <i>a quo</i> which rendered the notice of appeal fatally defective. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-top:16px; margin-left:42px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-31.5pt"> </p> <p style="margin-left:36px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-49.5pt"><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">        21.    As indicated above, Mr <i>Uriri</i> raised a preliminary point to the effect that the appellant’s grounds of appeal were not clear and concise and sought a striking off of the appeal.   </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:30px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-54.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:40.5pt"><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 further submitted that the relief sought by the appellant was defective as it did not pray for a remittal of the matter for continuation of the trial on the merits of the matter in the event that the appeal succeeds. Counsel submitted that this rendered the appeal fatally defective.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:42px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-31.5pt"> </p> <p style="margin-left:42px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-31.5pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:40.5pt"><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">22.    The amendment sought by the appellant was made by way of notice and in terms of the r 41 of the Supreme Court Rules. Rule 41 provides as follows:</span></span></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:115%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><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">“Power to allow amendment</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-left:96px; 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-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">41.The court may upon application by notice or upon oral application by counsel during the course of any hearing allow, upon such terms as it may think fit to impose, amendment of the grounds of appeal or of any pleadings or other document and may similarly permit a party to appear or be represented notwithstanding any declaration in terms of rule 50 to the effect that the party does not intend to appear or be represented.”</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-left:42px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-31.5pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:40.5pt"><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">23.    With regard to the issue of whether or not the appellant’s grounds of appeal were fatally defective on the basis that they were not clear and concise as required by the rules of this Court, we found that the grounds of appeal could have been more elegantly crafted, however, they were not fatally defective. This Court has pronounced itself on the test to be applied in determining whether or not grounds of appeal are valid.  In</span></span></span> <i><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">Zvokusekwa v Bikita Rural District Council </span></span></span></i><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">SC 44/15 the Court noted that:</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:96px; 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">“One must, I think, be guided by the substance of the grounds of appeal and not the form.  Legal practitioners often exhibit different styles in formulating such grounds.  What is important at the end of the day is that the grounds must disclose the basis upon which the decision of the lower court is impugned in a clear and concise manner.” </span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"> </p> <p style="margin-left:36px; 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">Also, in <i>Dr Kunonga v Church of the Province</i> <i>of Central Africa</i> SC 25/17 at pg 18 the Court stated that:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:96px; 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">“…where the court is faced by some of the grounds of appeal that are not clear and concise and by others that are, the courts should proceed to determine the appeal on the basis of the valid grounds.”</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"> </p> <p style="margin-top:16px; margin-left:42px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-31.5pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:54.0pt"><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">24.   The Court must be guided by the substance and not the form of the grounds of appeal. At the end of the day the determining factors of whether or not grounds of appeal are valid and compliant with the rules of the court can be set out as follows:</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <ol><li style="list-style-type:none"> <ol style="list-style-type:lower-alpha"><li style="margin-top:16px; margin-left:64px; 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 grounds of appeal must relate to the judgment appealed against, </span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-top:16px; margin-left:64px; 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">must clearly and concisely show how the decision of the court <i>a quo</i> is erroneous, and </span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-top:16px; margin-left:64px; 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">must show the basis upon which the decision should be vacated. </span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol></li> </ol><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">In this regard a proper reading of the appellant’s grounds of appeal clearly reveal the basis upon which the judgment of the court <i>a quo</i> is being challenged. The only ground of appeal which is unclear and meaningless and cannot be allowed to stand is ground 1.4. Indeed, it was accepted that the grounds could have been crafted in a more elegant manner. However, at the end of the day, it was our view that they met the threshold as set out in the rules and in the case authorities, except for ground 1.4 which we struck out. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-top:16px; margin-left:48px; 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">25.   The additional grounds of appeal in the notice of amendment were predicated on the same facts which were before the court <i>a quo</i>. The appellant in its heads of arguments had already made submissions on the basis of the amended grounds. The respondents had responded to the heads of argument. In the circumstances of this case, however it did not appear that the respondent would suffer any prejudice if the application was granted.  As the amendment was not prejudicial to the respondents and any prejudice could adequately be compensated with an appropriate order of costs, we saw no reason to refuse the application. </span></span></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: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 the basis of the above reasons we accordingly made the following order: </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:96px; 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 preliminary point raised by counsel for the respondents is dismissed. The application to amend the grounds of appeal and prayer is granted, save for ground 1.4 in the notice of amendment. The appellant is ordered to pay the respondents’ wasted costs.”</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-top:16px; margin-left:42px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-31.5pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:18.0pt 40.5pt"><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">26.    On the merits, counsel for the appellant argued that it was improper for the court <i>a quo</i> to grant counterclaims that were not filed in terms of r 121 of the High Court Rules, 1971 (‘the High Court Rules’). Counsel further argued that the judgment of the court made factual findings without hearing the evidence of the first respondent. The factual findings could only have been made after hearing the defence case. He also argued that the inference drawn by the court in respect of the statement of account was not the only inference in the circumstances of the case and, in any event did not prove that the debt owed by the respondents had been repaid. It was also counsel’s argument that the appellant proved a <i>prima facie</i> case in establishing that the loan facility was disbursed to the first respondent and it was for the respondents to prove that the loan was repaid in full. He prayed that the appeal be allowed with the matter being remitted to the court <i>a quo</i> for continuation of trial and an order for costs.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"> </p> <p style="margin-top:16px; margin-left:42px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-31.5pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:31.5pt 49.5pt"><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">27.     <i>Per contra</i>, counsel for the first, third to seventh respondents argued that the court <i>a quo</i> correctly found that the appellant failed to establish a <i>prima facie</i> case as there was no valid cause of action. Counsel further argued that the documentary evidence produced before the court <i>a quo</i> showed that the loan was repaid in full on 31 December 2015 and as such the appellant had no basis to sue. He also argued that the appellant’s witness Gunundu contradicted himself in his evidence and as such a <i>prima facie</i> case could not have had been established by the appellant. Counsel further argued that the purported sureties made in the names of the third to seventh respondents were invalid and void. Counsel prayed for the dismissal of the appeal. </span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-top:16px; margin-left:48px; 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">28.    Counsel for the second respondent also prayed for the dismissal of the appeal and argued that the appellant had no cause of action against the second respondent as no loan facility was ever advanced to it. Counsel submitted that the loan was repaid on 31 December 2015 and that the appellant had admitted that this was the position in evidence. He further submitted that there was no valid mortgage bond in the name of the second respondent upon which the appellant could execute.  The mortgage bond made by the second respondent in favour of the appellant related to a 2011 loan facility and not the 2015 loan facility. Counsel further maintained that the second respondent had only one director in Zimbabwe and as such no valid resolution could have been made in the absence of the second director. As such counsel argued that the power of attorney and mortgage bond were not properly executed. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:42px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-31.5pt"> </p> <p style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-left:36px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-27.0pt"><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">29.   It is my view that the appellant’s grounds of appeal raise a single issue, i.e. whether or not the court <i>a quo</i> erred in granting the application for absolution from the instance.</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><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">ANALYSIS </span></span></span></u></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">Whether or not the court <i>a quo</i> erred in granting the application for absolution from the instance.</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-top:16px; margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:40.5pt"><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">30.   The cause of action of the appellant against the first respondent was based on a credit facility dated 2 November 2015.  It was alleged that the first respondent had failed to repay the loan advanced to it under that facility. The cause of action as against the second to seventh respondents was based on the various surety and mortgage bonds filed of record which were made in favour of the appellant by the respondents at different times. The court <i>a quo</i> in granting the respondents’ application for absolution from the instance found that the loan advanced to the first respondent was repaid on 31 December 2015.  The basis of this finding was an accounting entry made by the appellant in its statement of accounts which showed a credit entry in the sum borrowed as having been paid.  On the basis of this entry the court reasoned that there was no cause of action upon which the appellant could claim as there was no outstanding debt.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-top:16px; margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="tab-stops:40.5pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"> </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:200%"><span style="tab-stops:54.0pt"><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">31.   The law to be applied in an application for absolution from the instance is well settled. In <i>United Air Charters (Pvt) Ltd v Jarman</i> 1994 (2) ZLR 341 (S) at pg 343 the Court held that:</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:96px; 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 test in deciding an application for absolution from the instance is well settled in this jurisdiction. A plaintiff will successfully withstand such an application if, at the close of his case, there is evidence upon which a court, directing its mind reasonably to such evidence, could or might (not should or ought to) find for him.” (see also <i>Oesthuizen v Standard General Versekeringsmaa &amp; Kappy BPK </i>1981 (A) 1035 (H)).</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-left:42px; 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 <i>Gordon Lloyd Page &amp; Associates and Rireira &amp; Another</i> 2001 (1) SA 88 (SCA) at 92 E-93 A it was held that:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:96px; 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 test for absolution to be applied by a trial court at the end of plaintiff’s case was formulated in <i>Claude neon Lights (SA) Ltd v Daniel</i> 1976 (4) SA 403 (A) at 409 G-H in these terms‘… when absolution from the instance at the close of plaintiff’s case, the test to be applied is not whether the evidence led by the plaintiff established what would finally be required to be established but whether there is evidence upon which a court applying its mind reasonably to such evidence could or might (not should or ought) find for the plaintiff…<u>’This implies that the plaintiff has to make out a <i>prima facie</i> case in the sense that there is evidence relating to all elements of the claim</u>…”</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-top:16px; margin-left:42px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-31.5pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:49.5pt"><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">32.   Absolution from the instance is thus granted by the court when an application has been made by a defendant at the close of a plaintiff’s case who fails to prove a <i>prima facie</i> case.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:30px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-left:30px; 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">A<i> prima facie </i>case was noted in <i>Fillieks and Others v S</i> [2014] ZAWHC 34 as follows:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:96px; 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">“<i>Prima facie</i> evidence in its more usual sense, is used to mean <i>prima facie</i> proof of an issue the burden of proving which is upon the party giving that evidence. In the absence of further evidence from the other side, the <i>prima facie</i> proof becomes conclusive and the party giving it discharges his onus…”</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-top:16px; margin-left:36px; 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 granting the application for absolution from the instance the court <i>a quo</i> thus had to be guided by the question of whether or not the appellant made out a <i>prima facie</i> case against the respondents on the basis of which the court could or might have found for the appellant. The appellant’s cause of action was based on the credit facility which it advanced to the first respondent on the 2<sup>nd</sup> of November 2015 for the sum of US$ 350 000. The purpose of the facility was to assist the first respondent in financing its working capital requirements. The facility further provided under clause 6 that the security for the amount advanced as the loan was secured by sureties and mortgage bonds registered in the names of the respondents in favour of the appellant. Under clause 12 of the facility all previous facility letters advanced to the first respondent by the appellant were cancelled.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-top:16px; margin-left:36px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-27.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:54.0pt"><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">33.  The accounting statements of the appellant filed of record show that, on 17 November 2015 under transaction number LD1532460482 and described as “Loan Drawdown”, the appellant credited the first respondent’s account with the sum of US$ 350 000. On the 30<sup>th</sup> of December 2015 under transaction number LD1532460482 and described as “Payment of Principal”, the sum of US$ 350 000 was reversed from the first respondent’s account into the appellant’s account.  The first respondent remained with a debit balance of US$375 671.35. </span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:36px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-27.0pt"> </p> <p style="margin-left:36px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-27.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="tab-stops:54.0pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"> </span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:36px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-31.5pt"><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">34.   The appellant’s witness, Gunundu, explained that the first entry meant that the appellant was crediting the first respondent with the proceeds of the loan. The second entry showed that those proceeds were meant to pay off an existing debt that the first respondent already had with the bank. It is important to quote the exchange between counsel for the appellant and the witness where he states that:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:96px; 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">“Q. If you move further down you will see that the same $350 000.00 appears on that page? A. Yes the second entry for $350 000.00 which in this instance now appears as a debit on the borrowers account was passed on 30<sup>th</sup> December 2015. The second entry that was passed by the bank on the 30<sup>th</sup> of December 2015 for 350 000.00 entailed that the bank was now debiting the customer’s account to confirm that this was now a new loan agreement with terms as contained in the facility letter offer of 2<sup>nd</sup> November 2015.”</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-top:16px; margin-left:42px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-31.5pt"><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">35.   The first respondent however maintained the argument <i>a quo</i> and before this Court that the loan was repaid on the 30<sup>th</sup> of December 2015 under the transaction description of “Payment of Principal”. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-top:16px; margin-left:42px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-9.0pt"><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">  On the basis of the above exchange, the court <i>a quo </i>found that the witness of the appellant did not establish its claim at all. The court concluded that Gunundu was not a credible witness and found that the appellant had failed to make out a <i>prima facie</i> case upon which the respondents could be placed on their defence. It is our view, however, that the court <i>a quo</i> fell into error in arriving at this finding.  </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-top:16px; margin-left:36px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-27.0pt"><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">36.   It should be noted from the onset that the appellant and the first respondent have had a long standing relationship of a banking nature. The record shows that from 2011 to 2015 when the credit facility which is the subject of this appeal was entered into, the appellant was advancing the first respondent different loan facilities and overdrafts. These loan facilities were advanced on the basis of the securities which were made by the second to seventh respondents.  For over 5 years the appellant was advancing money to the first respondent on the basis of those securities with no issues arising. Emails filed of record further show correspondence between the third respondent, the first respondent’s Finance Manager one Jill Ngwerume Gunundu on behalf of the appellant and Nyangulu, which correspondence shows how some of the securities were registered. Emails between Rodney Callaghan and Darryn Blumears (acting on behalf of the second respondent) are also part of the record which shows the parties acknowledging that certain sums of money were owed and that the respondents would raise money to pay the debts. Although these emails were written in 2013 to 2014, this confirms the nature of the relationship between the appellant and the respondents, and that as at 2014 there was a debt owed to the appellant.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-top:16px; margin-left:36px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-27.0pt"><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">37. Having found that there existed a banking relationship between the appellant the respondents, the next question relates to the credit facility advanced to the first respondent on 2 November 2015 and whether or not that facility was repaid.  There is no documentary evidence in the record which shows that the first respondent wrote to the appellant seeking a refinancing loan to cover its existing debts. However, given the history between the parties on how the appellant advanced several loans to the first respondent over the years, it can be taken that the first respondent must have approached the appellant seeking a loan to repay its outstanding debts. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-top:16px; margin-left:42px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-31.5pt"><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">38.  A reading of the appellant’s accounting statement shows that before the “loan drawdown” was made to the first respondent’s account the account showed a debit balance of US$ 367 981.74. When the loan sum was deposited the balance was reduced to US$ 17 981.74. This means that the loan reduced an existing debt. When the loan was reversed back to the appellant’s account on 30 December 2015 the balance returned to US$ 375 671.35.  This summary shows that the loan was advanced by the appellant to refinance an existing debt. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:42px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-31.5pt"> </p> <p style="margin-top:16px; margin-left:42px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-31.5pt"><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">39.   The credit facility, though not clearly labelled as a refinancing loan, appears to have been made in order to give the first respondent time to repay the loan.  This explains the creation of a repayment plan on how the first respondent would repay its debt.  In my view, the credit facility, though not specified as a refinancing loan, must have been made for the purpose of extending the period in which the first respondent had to repay its debts. It is important to borrow the words quoted with approval by Gubbay CJ in <i>Chikoma v Mukweza</i> 1998 (1) ZLR 541 (SC) at pg 544 wherein the Court noted that:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-top:16px; margin-left:96px; 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">“Not to be overlooked, as well, are the wise words of Lord Wright in <i>Hillas &amp; Co Ltd v Arcos Ltd </i>[1932] All ER Rep 494 (HL) at 503I; (1932) 147 LT 503 (HL) at 514: </span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-top:16px; margin-left:144px; 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">‘Businessmen often record the most important agreements in crude and summary fashion; modes of expression sufficient and clear to them in the course of their business may appear to those unfamiliar with the business far from complete or precise. It is accordingly, the duty of the court to construe such documents fairly and broadly, without being too astute or subtle in finding defects; but, on the contrary, the court should seek to apply the old maxim of English law,<i> verba ita sunt intelligenda ut res magis valeat quam pereat.</i>’</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-top:16px; margin-left:96px; 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">See also <i>Burroughs Machines Ltd v Chenille Corp of SA (Pty) Ltd</i> 1964 (1) SA 669 (W) at 670G-H.”</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-top:16px; margin-left:96px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-left:42px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-31.5pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:45.0pt"><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">40.    Thus, essentially what was before the court <i>a quo</i> was a claim for the repayment of a loan. The appellant had a duty, after all the evidence had been led by both appellant and the respondents, to prove its case on a balance of probabilities. </span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-top:16px; margin-left:48px; 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">41.    The argument in the respondents’ plea that the loan was repaid in less than a month does not carry much weight and is an argument which the respondents had to prove in evidence. It is important to note that there was nothing in the record showing a deposit from the respondents to indicate that the first respondent had paid off the loan.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-top:16px; margin-left:36px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-31.5pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:45.0pt"><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">42.   The court <i>a quo</i> fell into error in making its decision solely on the entry made on 30 December 2015 in the appellant’s statement of account. That entry had to be read in conjunction with all the facts of the matter and the banking history which existed between the parties. The first respondent never denied owing the appellant but rather denied the sum claimed by the appellant and averred in its plea that if at all it owed the bank its debit balance was less than US$ 109 000. All these are issues which the court <i>a quo</i> could not determine without putting the first respondent to its defence.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:45.0pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"> </span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:30px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-27.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:45.0pt"><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">43.   The court <i>a quo</i> further erred in making a finding that the appellant’s witness was not a credible witness in circumstances when it had not heard evidence from the respondents. This was a clear error as there was nothing upon which the court could measure the appellant’s evidence. In <i>Megalink Investments (Pvt) Ltd v Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe</i> HH 4/17 at pg 5 the court held that:</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:96px; 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">“I need to point out, too, that at this stage the court is not so much concerned with questions of the credibility of the witnesses and the probabilities of the case as there is nothing to measure those aspects against in the absence of the defendant’s evidence. The court at this stage is presented with only one side of the story which alone must be examined to determine whether the requirements for absolution have been satisfied.”</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-left:96px; 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">In the case of <i>Professor Charles</i> <i>Nherera v Jayesh Shah</i> SC 51/19, GARWE JA as he then was, quoted the case of <i>Supreme Service Station 1969 (Pvt) Ltd v Fox &amp; Goodridge (Pvt) Ltd</i> 1971 (1) ZLR 1, in which BEADLE CJ highlighted some of the considerations that a court, faced with an application for absolution from the instance, ought to bear in mind.  He pointed out that the court should always bear in mind that the defendant has not yet given evidence, or been cross-examined.  Thus, the court should not dismiss the plaintiff’s evidence unless it is glaringly incredible.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-top:16px; margin-left:42px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-31.5pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:45.0pt"><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">44.   The court <i>a quo</i> thus misdirected itself by making a finding on the credibility of the appellant’s witnesses in the absence of evidence from the respondents’ witnesses. Gunundu explained how the transactions under the credit facilities were made and how they operated. He further explained how the appellant had always worked with the first respondent in trust and on the basis of the securities which had been lodged with the bank by the first respondent over the years. It seems to me that his evidence was sufficient to establish a <i>prima facie</i> case for the appellant with regard to whether or not the respondent owed the appellant.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-top:16px; margin-left:36px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-27.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:31.5pt 40.5pt"><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">45.   It is common cause that the respondents agreed to be sureties and co-principal debtors in the event that the first respondent failed to repay the appellant. The security documents are part of the record. They have the signatures of the respondents. In making its claim in reconvention <i>a quo</i> the second respondent averred that the mortgage bonds in favour of the appellant were fraudulently acquired by the appellant. </span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:36px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-27.0pt"> </p> <p style="margin-top:16px; margin-left:42px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-31.5pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:45.0pt"><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">           Nyangulu testified on how he processed the registration of the mortgage bonds through the bank. Counsel for the second respondent however put him to task on the effect of the mortgage bonds registered against the second respondent’s property in favour of the appellant. The court <i>a quo</i> reasoned that, as Nyangulu had admitted under cross examination that there may have been shortcomings in the manner in which the mortgage bonds were registered, therefore they were invalid.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:42px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-31.5pt"> </p> <p style="margin-top:16px; margin-left:36px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-31.5pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:40.5pt"><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">46.   However, the record shows that as at 29 May 2014 Darryn Blumears, in an email to Rodney Callaghan, was having conversations as to “a figure breakdown for the loan against Pagomo”. Pagomo was one of the properties upon which a mortgage bond was registered by the second respondent in favour of the appellant. On the same day, in an email from Rodney Callaghan to Darryn Blumears, he was informed that: “The total loan is $450 000 to NMB of which $325 000 is against Pagomo and the balance of $125 000 is against Tarlington Road.” This email is just but one of the correspondence in the record which suggest that there existed debts between the first respondent and the appellant and that those debts were covered by securities in the form of sureties and mortgages. This evidence in my view shows that there was an acceptance by the respondents that the loans were covered by the sureties and mortgage bonds. Thus, any denial of the proposition by the appellant that the mortgage bonds were valid should have been contradicted by the respondents in evidence.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="tab-stops:40.5pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"> </span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-top:16px; margin-left:42px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-31.5pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:40.5pt"><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">47.   It should also be noted that in making their pleas <i>a quo</i>, the respondents jointly made averments with regards to the sureties and mortgage bonds. Of note are the material allegations made by the respondents that the surety signed by the second respondent was signed by the daughter of the third and fourth respondents without a valid board resolution for her to do so. Further, the acknowledgment of debt was not signed by the first respondent and that an official of the appellant fraudulently made the third and fourth respondent’s daughter sign as surety on behalf of the second respondent. It was further averred that the appellant thus registered unauthorised mortgage bonds against the second respondent. All these averments made by the respondents in their pleas raise issues which were disputed by the appellant and therefore needed to be proved by way of <i>viva voce</i> evidence from the respondents. As such the court <i>a quo</i> could not grant absolution, as it did, without allowing the respondents to take to the stand to prove their claims.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:42px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-27.0pt"> </p> <p style="margin-left:42px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-27.0pt"> </p> <p style="margin-left:42px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-31.5pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:49.5pt"><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">48.  The court <i>a quo</i> in making its determination found that the first and third to seventh respondents made claims in reconvention as to the invalidity of the sureties in their names. However, as submitted by counsel for the appellant, these respondents did not make any claims in reconvention in their pleas. The claim in reconvention which is in the record relates only to the second respondent. No amendment to the claim in reconvention was made to show that this was to cover all the respondents. As such the court <i>a quo</i> was clearly wrong and made a determination on an issue which was not properly placed before it. Rule 121 (1) of the High Court Rules provides that:</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:96px; 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 claim in reconvention shall be so described and shall be bound and filed with the defendant’s plea.”</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:30px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-22.5pt"><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">49.   Only the second respondent properly made its claim in reconvention in its plea. The rest of the respondents only filed a notice of application to amend their pleas and claims in reconvention on the 30<sup>th</sup> of May 2017. The respondents’ notice stated that at the pre-trial conference the respondents would apply to amend the pleas and make claims in reconvention. The record does not reflect whether or not the application for an amendment was motivated and if it was granted. More specifically, there is no order in the record to show that the amendment was granted at the pre-trial conference. The Pre Trial Conference Minute is also silent on this issue. It seems to us that the court <i>a quo</i> could not make any finding on claims which were never raised in the papers before it by the respondents.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:30px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-22.5pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"> </span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:30px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-22.5pt"><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">50.   A court must determine a matter based on the papers and evidence placed before it by the parties. It cannot go on a frolic of its own (see</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">Nzara and Ors v Kashumba N.O. and Ors </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">SC 18/18 at pg 13). The court <i>a quo</i> fell into error when it granted claims in reconvention which were not properly pleaded by the respondents.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"> </span></span></p> <p style="margin-top:16px; margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:27.0pt 49.5pt"><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">51.  The sureties and mortgage bonds were signed by the respondents and they all had a provision for unlimited cover. The question of whether these sureties and mortgages were valid can only be answered when the issue of whether or not the first respondent owes the appellant the claimed sum of money has been answered. The invalidity of the security documents is an issue which the respondents should prove in their defence. In the same way that the appellant made its case that the security documents were valid as they were always used by the first respondent in acquiring loans over the years and were never questioned by the second to seventh respondents as being invalid, so too must the respondents show that the security documents were invalid and cannot relate to the loan facility dated 2 November 2015.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="tab-stops:36.0pt 49.5pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"> </span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-top:16px; margin-left:42px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-31.5pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:40.5pt"><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">52.   It is thus imperative that the court <i>a quo </i>makes a determination on whether or not the first respondent is liable to repay the loan advanced to it by the appellant on 2 November 2015. The determination will deal with the issue of whether or not the suretyships and mortgage bonds in favour of the appellant are valid or invalid. As long as the suretyships remained signed with a provision that they are of an unlimited nature and the appellant remains in possession of the title deeds to the properties under the mortgage bonds, the security documents must be held as being valid. A final resolution of the matter can only be made after the defence case is heard. </span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-top:16px; margin-left:42px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-31.5pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="tab-stops:40.5pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"> </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"><b><u><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></u></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:42px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-31.5pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:27.0pt 40.5pt"><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">53.   The court <i>a quo</i> misdirected itself in granting the respondents’ application for absolution from the instance in a case where the appellant had made a <i>prima facie</i> case upon which judgment might or could have been entered in its favour. The court <i>a quo</i> also erred in cancelling the surety and mortgage agreement in circumstances where there were no counterclaims filed by the third to seventh respondents seeking such relief. The justice of the case was one which required that the respondents be put to their defence.  The appellant, having succeeded in the appeal, is entitled to its costs.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:42px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-31.5pt"> </p> <p style="margin-left:42px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-31.5pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:27.0pt 40.5pt"><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">   <b>  </b>In the result, it is ordered as follows:</span></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:94.5pt"><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">The appeal be and is hereby allowed with costs.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-left:86px; 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">The judgment of the court <i>a quo</i> is set aside and substituted with the following:</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:180px; 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 defendants’ application for absolution from the instance and second defendant’s application for its claim in reconvention to be granted at the close of the plaintiff’s case be and are hereby dismissed with costs.”</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:72px; text-align:justify"> </p> <ol start="3"><li style="margin-left:86px; 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">The matter is hereby remitted to the court <i>a quo</i> for continuation of trial.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:126px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-left:126px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"> </span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt; 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">GARWE JA              :           </span></span></span></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">            I agree</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"> </p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt; margin-bottom:11px"> </p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt; 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">PATEL JA                :</span></span></span></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">                       I agree</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt; margin-bottom:11px"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><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">Sawyer &amp; Mkushi</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">, appellant’s legal practitioners </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><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">Sheshe &amp; Mutonono Attorneys</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>3<sup>rd</sup> -7<sup>th</sup> respondent’s legal practitioners</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"> </span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><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">Thompson Stevenson &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">, 2<sup>nd</sup> respondent’s legal practitioners</span></span></span></span></span></span></p></span></div></div> </div> </div> Mon, 11 Apr 2022 09:58:00 +0000 Sandra Muengwa 12385 at http://zimlii.org Unki Mine (Private) Limited v ZIMRA (15 of 2022) [2022] ZWSC 15 (03 February 2022); http://zimlii.org/zw/judgment/supreme-court-zimbabwe/2022/15 <span class="field field--name-title field--type-string field--label-hidden">Unki Mine (Private) Limited v ZIMRA (15 of 2022) [2022] ZWSC 15 (03 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/2083" hreflang="x-default">APPEAL</a></div> <div class="field__item"><a href="/taxonomy/term/2302" hreflang="x-default">assessment of income tax</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">Wed, 04/06/2022 - 07:05</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/2022/15/2022-zwsc-15.docx" type="application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document; length=41285">2022-zwsc-15.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/2022/15/2022-zwsc-15.pdf" type="application/pdf; length=405095">2022-zwsc-15.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="MsoHeader"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="tab-stops:center 225.65pt"><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. SC 15/22</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">                        Civil Appeal No. SC 35/20</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><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">REPORTABLE</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">        (14)</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></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">UNKI     MINE     (PRIVATE)     LIMITED</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: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">ZIMBABWE     REVENUE     AUTHORITY</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b>            </b></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">SUPREME COURT OF ZIMBABWE</span></span></b></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">GUVAVA JA, UCHENA JA &amp; MAKONI JA</span></span></b></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><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">HARARE, 8 SEPTEMBER 2020 &amp; 3 FEBRUARY 2022</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"> </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-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">E. T. Matinenga</span></span></span></i><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">, 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-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">T. Magwaliba</span></span></span></i><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">, for the respondent</span></span></span></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"><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">GUVAVA JA</span></span></span></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">: </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <ol><li class="MsoNoSpacing" style="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">This is an appeal against the whole judgment of the Fiscal Appeal Court HH 20/20 dated 8 January 2020. The court <i>a quo</i> dismissed the appellant’s appeal against the decision of the Commissioner in respect of assessed tax and confirmed its amended income assessment made by the Commissioner on 2 September 2015.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:38px; text-align:justify"> </p> <ol start="2"><li class="MsoNoSpacing" 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 is a company, with limited liability, duly incorporated in terms of the laws of Zimbabwe. It carries on the business of mining platinum in an area known as Middleridge Claims in Zimbabwe. The appellant and a related company known as Southridge Limited are subsidiaries of a registered company known as AmZim Holdings Limited Group (‘Amzim’). Amzim is, in turn, a member of the Anglo American Group (‘Amhold’). Amhold is not a trading or operating entity and is also not a Zimbabwean company. It merely holds all the shares in the appellant.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-bottom:11px; margin-left:48px"> </p> <ol start="3"><li class="MsoNoSpacing" 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 respondent is a statutory body established in terms of s 3 of the Zimbabwe Revenue Authority Act [<i>Chapter 23:11</i>].  Its mandate is, amongst others, to assess and collect revenue on behalf of Government.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-bottom:11px; margin-left:48px"> </p> <ol start="4"><li class="MsoNoSpacing" 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 is the holder of a Special Mining Lease issued to it in March 2008 by the Government of Zimbabwe (‘GOZ’) in respect of the mining of platinum in an area known as Middleridge Claims. The appellant and Southridge Limited,  for the purpose of facilitating the participation of other players in the platinum industry, ceded platinum claims (Bougai and Kironde) to the GOZ in an agreement signed between the relevant parties on 25 March 2008 (the ‘cession agreement’).</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <ol start="5"><li class="MsoNoSpacing" 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">On 1 November 2012 the GOZ, the National Indigenisation and Economic Empowerment Fund, the Anglo American Platinum Limited, Amzim, Southridge Limited and the appellant entered into an agreement to implement the indigenisation implementation plan and indigenisation transaction. The agreement also provided for the 51 per cent equity ownership in Amhold being issued to Indigenous Entities.  The founding document of the agreement was termed the Heads of Agreement (‘Heads of Agreement’). The Heads of Agreement are part of an agreement in fulfilment of the indigenisation laws of Zimbabwe and was consequent upon the cessation agreement signed on 25 March 2008.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <ol start="6"><li class="MsoNoSpacing" 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 2007, the GOZ enacted the Indigenisation and Economic Empowerment Act No. 14 of 2007 [<i>Chapter 14: 33</i>] (‘the Indigenisation and Economic Empowerment Act’). The Act came into operation on 17 April 2008. On 23 November 2011, a Deed of Trust for the Tongogara Rural District Community Share Ownership Trust (‘the Trust’) was founded. The founders of the Trust were Saviour Kasukuwere, the then Minister of Youth Development, Indigenisation and Empowerment representing the GOZ, July Ndlovu duly authorised to represent Amhold, Collin Chibata duly authorised to represent the appellant, Gilbert Dhaidhai, Christmas Ndanga, Toendepi Banga, Walter Nemasasi and James Pasipano Maposa as founding trustees.  The Trust Deed was to be read together with the Indigenisation Implementation Plan signed on 12 August 2012.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <ol start="7"><li class="MsoNoSpacing" 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">On 15 April 2010, Amhold submitted its initial indigenisation implementation plan under the Indigenisation and Economic Empowerment (General) Regulations, 2010 Statutory Instrument 21 of 2010 (‘the Regulations’), which also covered its local subsidiaries, to the Minister of Youth Development, Indigenisation and Empowerment for approval. The indigenisation implementation plan was revised initially on 7 June 2012 and finally approved on 10 August 2012. In terms of the final approved indigenisation implementation plan, Amhold committed to donate US$ 10 million as seed capital to the Trust through the appellant, its subsidiary. The actual payment of the US$ 10 million donation was thus made by the appellant. </span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <ol start="8"><li class="MsoNoSpacing" 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"> On 30 May 2011, the appellant submitted its self-assessment for the tax year ending 31 December 2011 wherein it claimed, <i>inter alia</i>, the US$ 10 million as a deduction against its taxable income in terms of s 15 of the Income Tax Act [<i>Chapter 23:06</i>] (the ‘Income Tax Act’), as read with para 4 (1) (a) of the Twenty-Second Schedule to the Income Tax Act, thereby reducing its taxable income by that amount.  The assessment by the appellant showed an assessed loss of US$ 41 652 575.  The total expenses excluding interest and tax were in the sum of US$ 30 254 951, which included the sum of US$ 10 million donation categorised in its financial statements for the year ended 31 December 2011 as “Contribution to Community Share Trust”.  </span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li class="MsoNoSpacing" 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 respondent then carried out an investigation on the tax compliance of the appellant on 12 November 2012 for the period January 2009 to December 2012. On 2 September 2015, the respondent issued to the appellant an amended Manual Notice of Assessment for income tax (Assessment Number 1/5114) for the year ending 31 December 2011, in which, <i>inter alia</i>, the respondent disallowed as a deduction the said sum of US$ 10 million donation.  </span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <ol start="10"><li class="MsoNoSpacing" 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">A dispute arose between the appellant and respondent as both parties disagreed over the nature of the appellant’s payment of the US$ 10 million donation.  The appellant filed a notice of objection on 11 November 2015 to the amended notice of assessment dated 2 September 2015. In making the objection the appellant argued that it had made the US$ 10 million payment in compliance with the Indigenisation and Economic Empowerment Act and the Indigenisation and Economic Empowerment Regulations.  The appellant alleged that it had an indigenisation implementation plan approved by the Minister of Youth Development, Indigenisation and Empowerment in terms of which it was obliged to make a payment of US$ 10 million to the Trust. Consequently, the appellant contended that the payment was of a revenue nature, as it was incurred for the purpose of trade or in the production of income.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:38px; text-align:justify"> </p> <ol start="11"><li class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-top:16px; 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">On 13 April 2016, the respondent disallowed the objection and reasoned that the US$10 million payment was not made wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the special mining lease operations but largely for obtaining approval of the indigenisation implementation plan. It also determined that the expenditure of the US$10 million was of a capital nature.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"> </span></span></p> <ol start="12"><li class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-top:16px; 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 decision of the respondent, the appellant lodged an appeal with the court <i>a quo</i> on 11 July 2016.  The parties filed a statement of agreed facts on 30 November 2017. The parties were in agreement that the appellant paid the sum of US$10 million to the Trust. The parties were also agreed that the appellant contended that the payment was made in part fulfilment of its legal obligation to indigenise in terms of the Indigenisation and Economic Empowerment Act and as such the payment was a deduction against its taxable income in terms of s 15 of the Income Tax Act. It was agreed that the respondent on the other hand, contended that the appellant did not have any legal obligation to pay the money to the trust and as such the payment was of a capital and not revenue nature. </span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:38px; text-align:justify"> </p> <ol start="13"><li class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-top:16px; 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">On 20 March 2017 a Pre-Appeal Meeting was held and a pre-appeal minute was agreed between the parties wherein the issue for determination was stated as follows:</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:66px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-21.3pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><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. Whether the expenditure (payment of US$10 million to the Tongogara Rural District Community Share Ownership Scheme made in 2011) claimed as a deduction is allowable as such.”</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:38px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-top:16px; margin-left:38px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">On 8 January 2020, the court <i>a quo</i> in determining the appeal found that the donation of US$ 10 million was not designed to establish, improve, or add to the income earning capacity nor did it generate any income for the appellant hence it was not of a revenue nature but capital.  The court <i>a </i>quo agreed with the respondent that the disbursed US$10 million was designed to preserve the appellant’s income-earning structure hence it was expenditure of a capital nature and not of a revenue nature. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:38px; text-align:justify"> </p> <ol start="14"><li class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-top:16px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"> The court <i>a quo</i> also dismissed the appellant’s contention that the US$ 10 million was paid in compliance with the indigenisation implementation laws of Zimbabwe and on the provisions of the indigenisation implementation plan. The court <i>a quo</i> found that the disbursement was a donation which had been made by the appellant on behalf of its holding company, Amhold, which was a separate legal entity and as such the appellant could not claim a deduction of the same. The court further found that the provisions of the Indigenisation Act and its Regulations did not require the appellant to make any donation in order to be indigenous compliant as it was a Zimbabwean company. In the result the court made the following order:</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:38px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><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 appeal be and is hereby is (<i>sic</i>) dismissed in its entirety.</span></span></span></span></p> <ol start="2"><li class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-top:16px; margin-left:54px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><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 amended assessment issued by the Commissioner on 2 September 2015 be and is hereby confirmed.</span></span></span></span></li> <li class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-top:16px; margin-left:36px; 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">Each party shall bear its own costs.”</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:76px; text-align:justify"> </p> <ol start="15"><li class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-top:16px; 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">Dissatisfied by the decision of the court <i>a quo</i> the appellant noted the present appeal on the following grounds of appeal:</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:76px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-1.0cm"><span style="font-size:11pt"><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 learned Judge erred at law in finding, in the main, that the payment of US$ 10 million to a Community Share Ownership Trust was a donation to such trust. He ought to have found that the payment was made to satisfy Appellant’s legal obligation to comply with Zimbabwe’s indigenous laws.</span></span></span></span></p> <ol start="2"><li class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-top:16px; margin-left:36px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><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 learned Judge erred at law in making the following incidental/ancillary findings against Appellant:-</span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-top:16px; margin-left:132px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-42.55pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><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)          The Appellant was not obliged to comply with indigenisation despite it being a   business as defined and obliged to be indigenous compliant in terms of the law.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-top:16px; margin-left:132px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-42.55pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><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">(b)  Having earlier found that the Appellant’s parent company had submitted an indigenisation plan for itself and its subsidiaries (including Appellant) later contradicted himself in finding that:- </span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:170px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><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">“Appellant could not rely on an indigenisation implementation plan that did not relate to it to claim the deduction in question.”</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:132px; text-align:justify"> </p> <ol start="3"><li class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-top:16px; margin-left:36px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><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 learned Judge erred at law in finding that the payment of US$ 10 million to the Trust was expenditure of a capital and not of a revenue nature.</span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:38px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-top:16px; margin-left:38px; 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 appellant’s grounds of appeal in my view raise the following issues for determination: </span></span></span></span></span></p> <ol><li class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:36px; text-align:justify"><span style="line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Whether or not the appellant was obliged at law to donate the sum of US$10 million to the Community Share Ownership Trust?</span></span></span></li> <li class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:36px; text-align:justify"><span style="line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Whether or not the court <i>a quo</i> erred in finding that the payment of US$10 million to the Trust was expenditure of a capital and not of a revenue nature?”</span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-top:16px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">SUBMISSIONS BEFORE THIS COURT</span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <ol start="16"><li style="margin-top:16px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Counsel for the appellant, Mr. <i>Matinenga,</i> submitted that the US$ 10 million donated by the appellant to the Trust was not a donation in the strict sense considering the context in which the payment was made. He insisted that the appellant was obligated to make the donation in order to be compliant with the requirement for indigenisation in accordance with the indigenisation laws of Zimbabwe. </span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-top:16px; 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">Counsel further submitted that the payment was a deductible expenditure of a revenue nature because it was for licensing purposes in order for the appellant to trade. He contended that, had the appellant not made the donation, its mining license would have been revoked. He thus urged the Court to allow the appeal.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:38px; text-align:justify"> </p> <ol start="17"><li style="margin-top:16px; 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">Per contra,</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"> counsel for the respondent, Mr <i>Magwaliba</i>, submitted that the donation was a donation proper which is not deductible in terms of part 4 (a) of the Twenty-Second Schedule of the Income Tax Act. He contended that the donation did not benefit the appellant but was designed to benefit Amhold, its parent company, a 3<sup>rd</sup> party. In any event it was his contention that there was no legal obligation on the appellant to make the donation or to be compliant with the indigenisation laws of Zimbabwe. </span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-top:16px; 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">Counsel explained that no consequence would have befallen the appellant had it not made the donation and even if there would have been any such consequence, it would have befallen the parent company, Amhold, which had the obligation to indigenise and not the appellant. He also submitted that the amendment to the Income Tax Act allowing deductions of payments made to Community Share Ownership Trusts was only made on 1 January 2013 hence the appellant could not claim a deduction in its tax assessment report compiled in 2011 in relation to the donation as the amendment did not apply retrospectively.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-top:16px; 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"><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">Whether or not the appellant was obliged at law to donate the sum of US$10 million to the Community Share Ownership Trust?</span></span></span></b></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">The appellant’s contention is that the payment of US$10 million to the Trust was made in compliance with the indigenisation laws of Zimbabwe to enable it to continue operating its special lease mining operations. Further, that the payment was for purposes of trade or in production of income and not of a capital nature. On the other hand the respondent maintained that the payment of US$10 million by the appellant was strictly a donation as there was no legal obligation on it to make the donation. Further, that the legal obligation to be compliant with the indigenisation laws was on the parent company Amhold and not the appellant.  It was also submitted, for the respondent, that the payment could only have been of a capital nature as it was not paid for the purpose of trade or production of income.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-top:16px; margin-left:38px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"> </span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:38px; text-align:justify"> </p> <ol start="19"><li style="margin-top:16px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The resolution of this appeal, in my view, revolves upon the determination of whether or not the appellant had a legal obligation to make the payment of US$ 10 million. In the event that it did, then the court must then determine whether the payment was of capital or revenue in nature.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-top:16px; 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"> </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <ol start="20"><li style="margin-top:16px; 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 borne in mind, from the onset, that the relationship between the GOZ, Amzim and its subsidiary companies has always been regulated by different laws and agreements. </span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:38px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-top:16px; 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 Heads of Agreement were signed between the GOZ, Anglo American Platinum Limited, Amzim Holdings Limited, Southridge Limited and the appellant. Clause 1.4 of the agreement provides for Amzim Holdings Limited which is a member of the Anglo American Group (‘Amhold’). The appellant and Southridge Limited are in turn members of the Anglo American Group. Clause 2.15 of the agreement further defines “Amhold Group” means “Amhold and all its direct and indirect subsidiaries including Unki Mine ...” Clause 4.2 of the agreement provides for the nature of the indigenisation transaction as follows:</span></span></span></span></span></span></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 lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">“… 51% equity ownership of Amhold shall be issued to the indigenous entities, utilising a notional vendor funded mechanism to be facilitated by Amhold. The implementation of the Indigenisation Transaction will result in the Amhold Group being in compliance with the indigenisation Requirements for the duration of the Indigenisation Compliance Period.”</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:1.0cm"> </p> <p style="margin-top:16px; 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">Clause 9.2.1 of the agreement is also worth quoting as it provides as follows:</span></span></span></span></span></span></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 lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">“… following the implementation of the Indigenisation Implementation Plan through the Indigenisation Transaction, e<u>ach member of the Amhold Group shall qualify as,  and shall for the duration of the Indigenious Compliance Period continue to qualify as, an Indigenous Entity </u>in compliance with the Indigenous Act…” (emphasis added)</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-top:16px; margin-left:38px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-top:16px; 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">An Indigenous Entity is further defined in the agreement under clause 2.1.49 as follows:</span></span></span></span></span></span></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 lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">“means a company in which issued shares are owned directly or indirectly by Indigenous Zimbabweans in the percentage proportion no less than that prescribed from time to time under the Indigenisation Act as the ‘minimum indigenisation and empowerment quota’...”</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-top:16px; margin-left:38px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-top:16px; 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">Lastly clause 3.4 of the agreement provides for the indigenisation implementation plan which was submitted by Amhold and approved by the Minister of Youth Development, Indigenisation and Empowerment in accordance with the Indigenisation and Economic Empowerment Act. The collective effect of the provisions of the Heads of Agreement show that Amhold is the parent company which has subsidiary companies being the appellant and Southridge Limited. Further it can be deduced that it is the parent company which submitted an indigenisation implementation plan which was approved by the Minister. It should also be noted that it was an agreed provision between the parties to the agreement that the parent company was obligated to issue 51 per cent of its shares to indigenous entities in compliance with the Indigenisation and Economic Empowerment Act. The Heads of Agreement further make it clear that during the implementation of the indigenisation plan the subsidiary companies of Amhold were to be treated as indigenous companies owned by indigenous Zimbabweans.</span></span></span></span></span></span></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="21"><li style="margin-top:16px; 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 is thus apparent that the indigenisation laws and agreements placed an obligation on Amhold to issue 51 per cent of its shares in order to comply with the indigenisation laws of Zimbabwe. It was the parent company that was given that legal mandate as it is a foreign entity and not its subsidiary companies. It thus follows that the Heads of Agreement and indigenous implementation plan were made for and on behalf of Amhold so that it is able to fulfil its legal obligations, as a foreign company. Having arrived at this conclusion, the Court must determine whether or not the appellant, as a subsidiary of Amhold, had a legal obligation to make the payment of US$10 million. </span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-top:16px; margin-left:38px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Clause 5.3 of the Heads of agreement provide as follows;</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:38px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">“5.3 It is hereby recorded that as part of the indigenisation implementation plan, Amhold has donated US$ 10 000 000.00 to the Community Trust for purposes, inter alia funding community projects”.</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-top:16px; 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 Heads of Agreement show that the US$10 million was donated by Amhold, the holding company of the appellant to the Trust for purposes of funding community projects. It is quite apparent from the record that Amhold is a separate company from its subsidiary companies. Consequently, the appellant could not claim a deduction, based on the donation, because it was not incurred by it but by the holding company. It is trite that a holding company is a separate legal entity for income tax purposes. (See <i>GC (Pvt) Ltd v Commissioner-General ZIMRA </i>2015(2) ZLR 116).</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:38px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-top:16px; margin-left:38px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">In the Amhold revised indigenisation implementation plan dated 5 June 2012 it was stated that:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:38px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">“… in November 2011, Unki donated US$ 10 million as seed capital to the Tongogara Rural District Community Share Ownership Trust (“TSOT”)” </span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:38px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-left:38px; text-align:justify"> </p> <ol start="22"><li style="margin-top:16px; 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 revised plan further showed that the Anglo American Platinum Limited (through its subsidiaries the appellant and Southridge Limited together being Amzim) donated US$10 million and further implemented a phase allocation of shares which would amount to 51 per cent. In the implementation of the phase allocation of the shares the appellant retained 100 per cent of its shares and Southridge limited retained 88.8 per cent. It is thus clear, from the revised plan, that the US$10 million payment made by the appellant was made on behalf of its parent company.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-top:16px; margin-left:38px; text-align:justify"> </p> <ol start="23"><li style="margin-top:16px; 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 <i>GC (Pvt) Ltd v Commissioner General, Zimra</i> </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">(<i>supra</i>)</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">, the principle was laid down that a taxpayer is not entitled to make deductions in respect of expenses incurred by other companies in the same group. Each individual company must be assessed according to its own taxes. Thus, the argument that the appellant paid the US$10 million to comply with the indigenisation laws of Zimbabwe is without merit as it had no legal obligation to do so. It was Amhold, the holding company, that was required by law to transfer 51 per cent ownership shares as a foreign-owned company to indigenous entities. The fact that the appellant paid the money on behalf of Amhold is of no moment.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:48px"> </p> <p style="margin-top:16px; margin-left:38px; text-align:justify"> </p> <ol start="24"><li style="margin-top:16px; 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">There was no legal obligation on the appellant in any way for it to donate US$10 million to the Trust. If there was, the appellant has not provided the basis mandating it to do so. The donation was an agreed amount that foreign mining companies pledged to donate to give effect to the indigenisation and empowerment schemes initiated by the GOZ. </span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <ol start="25"><li style="margin-top:16px; margin-left:8px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The main object of the Trust was to use the proceeds of the Trust Assets to undertake various development programmes for the benefit of the residents of the area. It is for this reason that it was Amhold which submitted the indigenisation implementation plan as required by the indigenisation laws.  The entity which should have obtained an indigenisation clearance certificate is Amhold and not the appellant. Hence the agreement records that it was Amhold that donated the US$ 10 million to the Community Share Ownership Trust through the appellant. </span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:48px"> </p> <p style="margin-top:16px; margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"> </p> <ol start="26"><li style="margin-top:16px; 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 this vein, it cannot be said that the court <i>a quo</i> erred in reaching the conclusion that the indigenisation implementation plan was that of the holding company and that the appellant made the payment for Amhold in fulfilment of obligations it had committed to meet under that plan. </span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-top:16px; margin-left:38px; 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">In our view, the decision arrived at by the court <i>a quo</i> cannot be faulted. The provisions of the Indigenisation and Economic Empowerment Act and its Regulations did not place a legal obligation on the appellant to donate to a Community Trust for it to be indigenous compliant. The parent company was obligated at law to comply with the indigenisation legislation by disposing of 51 per cent of its shareholding to indigenous partners which it did in its revised indigenous implementation plan which was approved by the Minister of Youth Development, Indigenisation and Empowerment.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:48px"> </p> <p style="margin-left:48px"> </p> <ol start="28"><li style="margin-top:16px; 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">Having, concluded that the appellant had no legal obligation to comply with the indigenous laws and be indigenous compliant so as to enable it to continue operating its special mining license, it follows that the appellant did not have a legal obligation to pay the US$10 million. It is our view, that, in these circumstances, it is not necessary to determine whether or not the payment was of a capital or revenue nature in order to dispose of this appeal. In the same vein it was also not necessary for the court <i>a quo</i> to have determined this issue.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:38px; text-align:justify"> </p> <ol start="29"><li style="margin-top:16px; 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">Moreover, even if, the appellant had made the payment on its own behalf it was not entitled to claim such a deduction of the donation under the Income Tax Act in 2011 because, at that time it was made, the law did not allow for such a deduction. The provisions of s 15(2) (ii) only came into force on 1 January 2013 and hence it would not have been applicable to the appellant’s case as it did not have retrospective effect. </span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-top:16px; margin-left:38px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-top:16px; text-align:justify"><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-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 is our view that the judgment of the court <i>a quo</i> cannot be impugned</span></span></span><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 donation of USD $10 million was paid by the appellant on behalf of its holding company Amhold, which is a separate legal entity. The appellant had no legal obligation to comply with the Indigenisation and Economic Empowerment Act. The appeal is thus devoid of merit. The respondent has been successful in resisting the appeal and is therefore entitled to costs. </span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><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-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 the result, it is accordingly ordered as follows:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:1.0cm"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:1.0cm"> </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-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 appeal be and is hereby dismissed with costs. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; text-indent:20.7pt"><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">UCHENA JA                 </span></span></span></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">I agree</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-left:28px; text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><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">MAKONI JA      </span></span></span></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">            I agree</span></span></span></span></span></span></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-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">Gill</span></span></span></i><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"> <i>Godlonton and Gerrans</i>, appellant’s legal practitioners </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"><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Zimbabwe Revenue Authority Legal and Corporate Services Division</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 respondent</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p> </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-988f9f1dc526328b977a5b69d40d1b0c626fd97b0e8656722c72a6b336c7effa"> <div><div class="views-field views-field-views-conditional-field"><span class="field-content"><p class="MsoHeader"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="tab-stops:center 225.65pt"><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. SC 15/22</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">                        Civil Appeal No. SC 35/20</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><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">REPORTABLE</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">        (14)</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></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">UNKI     MINE     (PRIVATE)     LIMITED</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: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">ZIMBABWE     REVENUE     AUTHORITY</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b>            </b></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">SUPREME COURT OF ZIMBABWE</span></span></b></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">GUVAVA JA, UCHENA JA &amp; MAKONI JA</span></span></b></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><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">HARARE, 8 SEPTEMBER 2020 &amp; 3 FEBRUARY 2022</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"> </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-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">E. T. Matinenga</span></span></span></i><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">, 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-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">T. Magwaliba</span></span></span></i><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">, for the respondent</span></span></span></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"><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">GUVAVA JA</span></span></span></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">: </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <ol><li class="MsoNoSpacing" style="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">This is an appeal against the whole judgment of the Fiscal Appeal Court HH 20/20 dated 8 January 2020. The court <i>a quo</i> dismissed the appellant’s appeal against the decision of the Commissioner in respect of assessed tax and confirmed its amended income assessment made by the Commissioner on 2 September 2015.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:38px; text-align:justify"> </p> <ol start="2"><li class="MsoNoSpacing" 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 is a company, with limited liability, duly incorporated in terms of the laws of Zimbabwe. It carries on the business of mining platinum in an area known as Middleridge Claims in Zimbabwe. The appellant and a related company known as Southridge Limited are subsidiaries of a registered company known as AmZim Holdings Limited Group (‘Amzim’). Amzim is, in turn, a member of the Anglo American Group (‘Amhold’). Amhold is not a trading or operating entity and is also not a Zimbabwean company. It merely holds all the shares in the appellant.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-bottom:11px; margin-left:48px"> </p> <ol start="3"><li class="MsoNoSpacing" 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 respondent is a statutory body established in terms of s 3 of the Zimbabwe Revenue Authority Act [<i>Chapter 23:11</i>].  Its mandate is, amongst others, to assess and collect revenue on behalf of Government.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-bottom:11px; margin-left:48px"> </p> <ol start="4"><li class="MsoNoSpacing" 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 is the holder of a Special Mining Lease issued to it in March 2008 by the Government of Zimbabwe (‘GOZ’) in respect of the mining of platinum in an area known as Middleridge Claims. The appellant and Southridge Limited,  for the purpose of facilitating the participation of other players in the platinum industry, ceded platinum claims (Bougai and Kironde) to the GOZ in an agreement signed between the relevant parties on 25 March 2008 (the ‘cession agreement’).</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <ol start="5"><li class="MsoNoSpacing" 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">On 1 November 2012 the GOZ, the National Indigenisation and Economic Empowerment Fund, the Anglo American Platinum Limited, Amzim, Southridge Limited and the appellant entered into an agreement to implement the indigenisation implementation plan and indigenisation transaction. The agreement also provided for the 51 per cent equity ownership in Amhold being issued to Indigenous Entities.  The founding document of the agreement was termed the Heads of Agreement (‘Heads of Agreement’). The Heads of Agreement are part of an agreement in fulfilment of the indigenisation laws of Zimbabwe and was consequent upon the cessation agreement signed on 25 March 2008.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <ol start="6"><li class="MsoNoSpacing" 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 2007, the GOZ enacted the Indigenisation and Economic Empowerment Act No. 14 of 2007 [<i>Chapter 14: 33</i>] (‘the Indigenisation and Economic Empowerment Act’). The Act came into operation on 17 April 2008. On 23 November 2011, a Deed of Trust for the Tongogara Rural District Community Share Ownership Trust (‘the Trust’) was founded. The founders of the Trust were Saviour Kasukuwere, the then Minister of Youth Development, Indigenisation and Empowerment representing the GOZ, July Ndlovu duly authorised to represent Amhold, Collin Chibata duly authorised to represent the appellant, Gilbert Dhaidhai, Christmas Ndanga, Toendepi Banga, Walter Nemasasi and James Pasipano Maposa as founding trustees.  The Trust Deed was to be read together with the Indigenisation Implementation Plan signed on 12 August 2012.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <ol start="7"><li class="MsoNoSpacing" 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">On 15 April 2010, Amhold submitted its initial indigenisation implementation plan under the Indigenisation and Economic Empowerment (General) Regulations, 2010 Statutory Instrument 21 of 2010 (‘the Regulations’), which also covered its local subsidiaries, to the Minister of Youth Development, Indigenisation and Empowerment for approval. The indigenisation implementation plan was revised initially on 7 June 2012 and finally approved on 10 August 2012. In terms of the final approved indigenisation implementation plan, Amhold committed to donate US$ 10 million as seed capital to the Trust through the appellant, its subsidiary. The actual payment of the US$ 10 million donation was thus made by the appellant. </span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <ol start="8"><li class="MsoNoSpacing" 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"> On 30 May 2011, the appellant submitted its self-assessment for the tax year ending 31 December 2011 wherein it claimed, <i>inter alia</i>, the US$ 10 million as a deduction against its taxable income in terms of s 15 of the Income Tax Act [<i>Chapter 23:06</i>] (the ‘Income Tax Act’), as read with para 4 (1) (a) of the Twenty-Second Schedule to the Income Tax Act, thereby reducing its taxable income by that amount.  The assessment by the appellant showed an assessed loss of US$ 41 652 575.  The total expenses excluding interest and tax were in the sum of US$ 30 254 951, which included the sum of US$ 10 million donation categorised in its financial statements for the year ended 31 December 2011 as “Contribution to Community Share Trust”.  </span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li class="MsoNoSpacing" 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 respondent then carried out an investigation on the tax compliance of the appellant on 12 November 2012 for the period January 2009 to December 2012. On 2 September 2015, the respondent issued to the appellant an amended Manual Notice of Assessment for income tax (Assessment Number 1/5114) for the year ending 31 December 2011, in which, <i>inter alia</i>, the respondent disallowed as a deduction the said sum of US$ 10 million donation.  </span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <ol start="10"><li class="MsoNoSpacing" 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">A dispute arose between the appellant and respondent as both parties disagreed over the nature of the appellant’s payment of the US$ 10 million donation.  The appellant filed a notice of objection on 11 November 2015 to the amended notice of assessment dated 2 September 2015. In making the objection the appellant argued that it had made the US$ 10 million payment in compliance with the Indigenisation and Economic Empowerment Act and the Indigenisation and Economic Empowerment Regulations.  The appellant alleged that it had an indigenisation implementation plan approved by the Minister of Youth Development, Indigenisation and Empowerment in terms of which it was obliged to make a payment of US$ 10 million to the Trust. Consequently, the appellant contended that the payment was of a revenue nature, as it was incurred for the purpose of trade or in the production of income.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:38px; text-align:justify"> </p> <ol start="11"><li class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-top:16px; 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">On 13 April 2016, the respondent disallowed the objection and reasoned that the US$10 million payment was not made wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the special mining lease operations but largely for obtaining approval of the indigenisation implementation plan. It also determined that the expenditure of the US$10 million was of a capital nature.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"> </span></span></p> <ol start="12"><li class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-top:16px; 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 decision of the respondent, the appellant lodged an appeal with the court <i>a quo</i> on 11 July 2016.  The parties filed a statement of agreed facts on 30 November 2017. The parties were in agreement that the appellant paid the sum of US$10 million to the Trust. The parties were also agreed that the appellant contended that the payment was made in part fulfilment of its legal obligation to indigenise in terms of the Indigenisation and Economic Empowerment Act and as such the payment was a deduction against its taxable income in terms of s 15 of the Income Tax Act. It was agreed that the respondent on the other hand, contended that the appellant did not have any legal obligation to pay the money to the trust and as such the payment was of a capital and not revenue nature. </span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:38px; text-align:justify"> </p> <ol start="13"><li class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-top:16px; 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">On 20 March 2017 a Pre-Appeal Meeting was held and a pre-appeal minute was agreed between the parties wherein the issue for determination was stated as follows:</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:66px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-21.3pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><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. Whether the expenditure (payment of US$10 million to the Tongogara Rural District Community Share Ownership Scheme made in 2011) claimed as a deduction is allowable as such.”</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:38px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-top:16px; margin-left:38px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">On 8 January 2020, the court <i>a quo</i> in determining the appeal found that the donation of US$ 10 million was not designed to establish, improve, or add to the income earning capacity nor did it generate any income for the appellant hence it was not of a revenue nature but capital.  The court <i>a </i>quo agreed with the respondent that the disbursed US$10 million was designed to preserve the appellant’s income-earning structure hence it was expenditure of a capital nature and not of a revenue nature. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:38px; text-align:justify"> </p> <ol start="14"><li class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-top:16px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"> The court <i>a quo</i> also dismissed the appellant’s contention that the US$ 10 million was paid in compliance with the indigenisation implementation laws of Zimbabwe and on the provisions of the indigenisation implementation plan. The court <i>a quo</i> found that the disbursement was a donation which had been made by the appellant on behalf of its holding company, Amhold, which was a separate legal entity and as such the appellant could not claim a deduction of the same. The court further found that the provisions of the Indigenisation Act and its Regulations did not require the appellant to make any donation in order to be indigenous compliant as it was a Zimbabwean company. In the result the court made the following order:</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:38px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><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 appeal be and is hereby is (<i>sic</i>) dismissed in its entirety.</span></span></span></span></p> <ol start="2"><li class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-top:16px; margin-left:54px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><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 amended assessment issued by the Commissioner on 2 September 2015 be and is hereby confirmed.</span></span></span></span></li> <li class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-top:16px; margin-left:36px; 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">Each party shall bear its own costs.”</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:76px; text-align:justify"> </p> <ol start="15"><li class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-top:16px; 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">Dissatisfied by the decision of the court <i>a quo</i> the appellant noted the present appeal on the following grounds of appeal:</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:76px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-1.0cm"><span style="font-size:11pt"><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 learned Judge erred at law in finding, in the main, that the payment of US$ 10 million to a Community Share Ownership Trust was a donation to such trust. He ought to have found that the payment was made to satisfy Appellant’s legal obligation to comply with Zimbabwe’s indigenous laws.</span></span></span></span></p> <ol start="2"><li class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-top:16px; margin-left:36px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><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 learned Judge erred at law in making the following incidental/ancillary findings against Appellant:-</span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-top:16px; margin-left:132px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-42.55pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><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)          The Appellant was not obliged to comply with indigenisation despite it being a   business as defined and obliged to be indigenous compliant in terms of the law.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-top:16px; margin-left:132px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-42.55pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><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">(b)  Having earlier found that the Appellant’s parent company had submitted an indigenisation plan for itself and its subsidiaries (including Appellant) later contradicted himself in finding that:- </span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:170px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><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">“Appellant could not rely on an indigenisation implementation plan that did not relate to it to claim the deduction in question.”</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:132px; text-align:justify"> </p> <ol start="3"><li class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-top:16px; margin-left:36px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><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 learned Judge erred at law in finding that the payment of US$ 10 million to the Trust was expenditure of a capital and not of a revenue nature.</span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:38px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-top:16px; margin-left:38px; 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 appellant’s grounds of appeal in my view raise the following issues for determination: </span></span></span></span></span></p> <ol><li class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:36px; text-align:justify"><span style="line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Whether or not the appellant was obliged at law to donate the sum of US$10 million to the Community Share Ownership Trust?</span></span></span></li> <li class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:36px; text-align:justify"><span style="line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Whether or not the court <i>a quo</i> erred in finding that the payment of US$10 million to the Trust was expenditure of a capital and not of a revenue nature?”</span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-top:16px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><b><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">SUBMISSIONS BEFORE THIS COURT</span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <ol start="16"><li style="margin-top:16px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Counsel for the appellant, Mr. <i>Matinenga,</i> submitted that the US$ 10 million donated by the appellant to the Trust was not a donation in the strict sense considering the context in which the payment was made. He insisted that the appellant was obligated to make the donation in order to be compliant with the requirement for indigenisation in accordance with the indigenisation laws of Zimbabwe. </span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-top:16px; 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">Counsel further submitted that the payment was a deductible expenditure of a revenue nature because it was for licensing purposes in order for the appellant to trade. He contended that, had the appellant not made the donation, its mining license would have been revoked. He thus urged the Court to allow the appeal.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:38px; text-align:justify"> </p> <ol start="17"><li style="margin-top:16px; 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">Per contra,</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"> counsel for the respondent, Mr <i>Magwaliba</i>, submitted that the donation was a donation proper which is not deductible in terms of part 4 (a) of the Twenty-Second Schedule of the Income Tax Act. He contended that the donation did not benefit the appellant but was designed to benefit Amhold, its parent company, a 3<sup>rd</sup> party. In any event it was his contention that there was no legal obligation on the appellant to make the donation or to be compliant with the indigenisation laws of Zimbabwe. </span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-top:16px; 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">Counsel explained that no consequence would have befallen the appellant had it not made the donation and even if there would have been any such consequence, it would have befallen the parent company, Amhold, which had the obligation to indigenise and not the appellant. He also submitted that the amendment to the Income Tax Act allowing deductions of payments made to Community Share Ownership Trusts was only made on 1 January 2013 hence the appellant could not claim a deduction in its tax assessment report compiled in 2011 in relation to the donation as the amendment did not apply retrospectively.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-top:16px; 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"><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">Whether or not the appellant was obliged at law to donate the sum of US$10 million to the Community Share Ownership Trust?</span></span></span></b></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">The appellant’s contention is that the payment of US$10 million to the Trust was made in compliance with the indigenisation laws of Zimbabwe to enable it to continue operating its special lease mining operations. Further, that the payment was for purposes of trade or in production of income and not of a capital nature. On the other hand the respondent maintained that the payment of US$10 million by the appellant was strictly a donation as there was no legal obligation on it to make the donation. Further, that the legal obligation to be compliant with the indigenisation laws was on the parent company Amhold and not the appellant.  It was also submitted, for the respondent, that the payment could only have been of a capital nature as it was not paid for the purpose of trade or production of income.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-top:16px; margin-left:38px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"> </span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:38px; text-align:justify"> </p> <ol start="19"><li style="margin-top:16px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The resolution of this appeal, in my view, revolves upon the determination of whether or not the appellant had a legal obligation to make the payment of US$ 10 million. In the event that it did, then the court must then determine whether the payment was of capital or revenue in nature.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-top:16px; 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"> </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <ol start="20"><li style="margin-top:16px; 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 borne in mind, from the onset, that the relationship between the GOZ, Amzim and its subsidiary companies has always been regulated by different laws and agreements. </span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:38px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-top:16px; 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 Heads of Agreement were signed between the GOZ, Anglo American Platinum Limited, Amzim Holdings Limited, Southridge Limited and the appellant. Clause 1.4 of the agreement provides for Amzim Holdings Limited which is a member of the Anglo American Group (‘Amhold’). The appellant and Southridge Limited are in turn members of the Anglo American Group. Clause 2.15 of the agreement further defines “Amhold Group” means “Amhold and all its direct and indirect subsidiaries including Unki Mine ...” Clause 4.2 of the agreement provides for the nature of the indigenisation transaction as follows:</span></span></span></span></span></span></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 lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">“… 51% equity ownership of Amhold shall be issued to the indigenous entities, utilising a notional vendor funded mechanism to be facilitated by Amhold. The implementation of the Indigenisation Transaction will result in the Amhold Group being in compliance with the indigenisation Requirements for the duration of the Indigenisation Compliance Period.”</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:1.0cm"> </p> <p style="margin-top:16px; 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">Clause 9.2.1 of the agreement is also worth quoting as it provides as follows:</span></span></span></span></span></span></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 lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">“… following the implementation of the Indigenisation Implementation Plan through the Indigenisation Transaction, e<u>ach member of the Amhold Group shall qualify as,  and shall for the duration of the Indigenious Compliance Period continue to qualify as, an Indigenous Entity </u>in compliance with the Indigenous Act…” (emphasis added)</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-top:16px; margin-left:38px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-top:16px; 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">An Indigenous Entity is further defined in the agreement under clause 2.1.49 as follows:</span></span></span></span></span></span></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 lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">“means a company in which issued shares are owned directly or indirectly by Indigenous Zimbabweans in the percentage proportion no less than that prescribed from time to time under the Indigenisation Act as the ‘minimum indigenisation and empowerment quota’...”</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-top:16px; margin-left:38px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-top:16px; 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">Lastly clause 3.4 of the agreement provides for the indigenisation implementation plan which was submitted by Amhold and approved by the Minister of Youth Development, Indigenisation and Empowerment in accordance with the Indigenisation and Economic Empowerment Act. The collective effect of the provisions of the Heads of Agreement show that Amhold is the parent company which has subsidiary companies being the appellant and Southridge Limited. Further it can be deduced that it is the parent company which submitted an indigenisation implementation plan which was approved by the Minister. It should also be noted that it was an agreed provision between the parties to the agreement that the parent company was obligated to issue 51 per cent of its shares to indigenous entities in compliance with the Indigenisation and Economic Empowerment Act. The Heads of Agreement further make it clear that during the implementation of the indigenisation plan the subsidiary companies of Amhold were to be treated as indigenous companies owned by indigenous Zimbabweans.</span></span></span></span></span></span></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="21"><li style="margin-top:16px; 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 is thus apparent that the indigenisation laws and agreements placed an obligation on Amhold to issue 51 per cent of its shares in order to comply with the indigenisation laws of Zimbabwe. It was the parent company that was given that legal mandate as it is a foreign entity and not its subsidiary companies. It thus follows that the Heads of Agreement and indigenous implementation plan were made for and on behalf of Amhold so that it is able to fulfil its legal obligations, as a foreign company. Having arrived at this conclusion, the Court must determine whether or not the appellant, as a subsidiary of Amhold, had a legal obligation to make the payment of US$10 million. </span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-top:16px; margin-left:38px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Clause 5.3 of the Heads of agreement provide as follows;</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:38px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">“5.3 It is hereby recorded that as part of the indigenisation implementation plan, Amhold has donated US$ 10 000 000.00 to the Community Trust for purposes, inter alia funding community projects”.</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-top:16px; 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 Heads of Agreement show that the US$10 million was donated by Amhold, the holding company of the appellant to the Trust for purposes of funding community projects. It is quite apparent from the record that Amhold is a separate company from its subsidiary companies. Consequently, the appellant could not claim a deduction, based on the donation, because it was not incurred by it but by the holding company. It is trite that a holding company is a separate legal entity for income tax purposes. (See <i>GC (Pvt) Ltd v Commissioner-General ZIMRA </i>2015(2) ZLR 116).</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:38px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-top:16px; margin-left:38px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">In the Amhold revised indigenisation implementation plan dated 5 June 2012 it was stated that:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:38px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">“… in November 2011, Unki donated US$ 10 million as seed capital to the Tongogara Rural District Community Share Ownership Trust (“TSOT”)” </span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:38px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-left:38px; text-align:justify"> </p> <ol start="22"><li style="margin-top:16px; 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 revised plan further showed that the Anglo American Platinum Limited (through its subsidiaries the appellant and Southridge Limited together being Amzim) donated US$10 million and further implemented a phase allocation of shares which would amount to 51 per cent. In the implementation of the phase allocation of the shares the appellant retained 100 per cent of its shares and Southridge limited retained 88.8 per cent. It is thus clear, from the revised plan, that the US$10 million payment made by the appellant was made on behalf of its parent company.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-top:16px; margin-left:38px; text-align:justify"> </p> <ol start="23"><li style="margin-top:16px; 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 <i>GC (Pvt) Ltd v Commissioner General, Zimra</i> </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">(<i>supra</i>)</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">, the principle was laid down that a taxpayer is not entitled to make deductions in respect of expenses incurred by other companies in the same group. Each individual company must be assessed according to its own taxes. Thus, the argument that the appellant paid the US$10 million to comply with the indigenisation laws of Zimbabwe is without merit as it had no legal obligation to do so. It was Amhold, the holding company, that was required by law to transfer 51 per cent ownership shares as a foreign-owned company to indigenous entities. The fact that the appellant paid the money on behalf of Amhold is of no moment.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:48px"> </p> <p style="margin-top:16px; margin-left:38px; text-align:justify"> </p> <ol start="24"><li style="margin-top:16px; 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">There was no legal obligation on the appellant in any way for it to donate US$10 million to the Trust. If there was, the appellant has not provided the basis mandating it to do so. The donation was an agreed amount that foreign mining companies pledged to donate to give effect to the indigenisation and empowerment schemes initiated by the GOZ. </span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <ol start="25"><li style="margin-top:16px; margin-left:8px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The main object of the Trust was to use the proceeds of the Trust Assets to undertake various development programmes for the benefit of the residents of the area. It is for this reason that it was Amhold which submitted the indigenisation implementation plan as required by the indigenisation laws.  The entity which should have obtained an indigenisation clearance certificate is Amhold and not the appellant. Hence the agreement records that it was Amhold that donated the US$ 10 million to the Community Share Ownership Trust through the appellant. </span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:48px"> </p> <p style="margin-top:16px; margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"> </p> <ol start="26"><li style="margin-top:16px; 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 this vein, it cannot be said that the court <i>a quo</i> erred in reaching the conclusion that the indigenisation implementation plan was that of the holding company and that the appellant made the payment for Amhold in fulfilment of obligations it had committed to meet under that plan. </span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-top:16px; margin-left:38px; 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">In our view, the decision arrived at by the court <i>a quo</i> cannot be faulted. The provisions of the Indigenisation and Economic Empowerment Act and its Regulations did not place a legal obligation on the appellant to donate to a Community Trust for it to be indigenous compliant. The parent company was obligated at law to comply with the indigenisation legislation by disposing of 51 per cent of its shareholding to indigenous partners which it did in its revised indigenous implementation plan which was approved by the Minister of Youth Development, Indigenisation and Empowerment.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:48px"> </p> <p style="margin-left:48px"> </p> <ol start="28"><li style="margin-top:16px; 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">Having, concluded that the appellant had no legal obligation to comply with the indigenous laws and be indigenous compliant so as to enable it to continue operating its special mining license, it follows that the appellant did not have a legal obligation to pay the US$10 million. It is our view, that, in these circumstances, it is not necessary to determine whether or not the payment was of a capital or revenue nature in order to dispose of this appeal. In the same vein it was also not necessary for the court <i>a quo</i> to have determined this issue.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:38px; text-align:justify"> </p> <ol start="29"><li style="margin-top:16px; 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">Moreover, even if, the appellant had made the payment on its own behalf it was not entitled to claim such a deduction of the donation under the Income Tax Act in 2011 because, at that time it was made, the law did not allow for such a deduction. The provisions of s 15(2) (ii) only came into force on 1 January 2013 and hence it would not have been applicable to the appellant’s case as it did not have retrospective effect. </span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-top:16px; margin-left:38px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-top:16px; text-align:justify"><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-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 is our view that the judgment of the court <i>a quo</i> cannot be impugned</span></span></span><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 donation of USD $10 million was paid by the appellant on behalf of its holding company Amhold, which is a separate legal entity. The appellant had no legal obligation to comply with the Indigenisation and Economic Empowerment Act. The appeal is thus devoid of merit. The respondent has been successful in resisting the appeal and is therefore entitled to costs. </span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><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-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 the result, it is accordingly ordered as follows:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:1.0cm"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:1.0cm"> </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-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 appeal be and is hereby dismissed with costs. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; text-indent:20.7pt"><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">UCHENA JA                 </span></span></span></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">I agree</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-left:28px; text-align:justify; text-indent:36.0pt"><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">MAKONI JA      </span></span></span></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">            I agree</span></span></span></span></span></span></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-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">Gill</span></span></span></i><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"> <i>Godlonton and Gerrans</i>, appellant’s legal practitioners </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"><i><span lang="EN-ZW" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZW"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Zimbabwe Revenue Authority Legal and Corporate Services Division</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 respondent</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p> </p></span></div></div> </div> </div> Wed, 06 Apr 2022 07:05:03 +0000 Sandra Muengwa 12379 at http://zimlii.org Legacy Hospitality Management Services Limited v African Sun Limited and Another (43 of 2022) [2022] ZWSC 43 (29 March 2022); http://zimlii.org/zw/judgment/supreme-court-zimbabwe/2022/43 <span class="field field--name-title field--type-string field--label-hidden">Legacy Hospitality Management Services Limited v African Sun Limited and Another (43 of 2022) [2022] ZWSC 43 (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/1454" hreflang="en">Arbitration awards</a></div> <div class="field__item"><a href="/taxonomy/term/1457" hreflang="en">Set Aside Arbitration Award</a></div> <div class="field__item"><a href="/taxonomy/term/1750"