Alpha Media Holdings (Pvt) Ltd and Another v Muhlwa (35 of 2024) [2024] ZWBHC 35 (4 March 2024)

Alpha Media Holdings (Pvt) Ltd and Another v Muhlwa (35 of 2024) [2024] ZWBHC 35 (4 March 2024)

The application was fatally defective because it was premised on equating a letter to the registrar with a formal application, contrary to the requirements of the rules. The Judge's correction of the costs order was not based on an application but on a letter, and the applicant failed to provide a proper basis for rescission under Rule 449 (1) (a). The applicant also failed to suggest an alternative solution for the costs order. The defects in the application warranted it being struck off the roll with costs.

Citation
[2024] ZWBHC 35
Parties
Applicant: Alpha Media Holdings (Pvt) Ltd; Applicant: Thandiwe Moyo; Respondent: Roger Muhlwa
Court
Bulawayo High Court
Jurisdiction
Zimbabwe
Judgment Date
4 March 2024
Case Number
35 of 2024
Procedural Posture
Opposed Application / Judgment on Application to Set Aside Amended Order of Costs
Outcome
Application struck off the roll with costs
Legal Topics
Rescission of Judgment, Costs Orders, Interpretation of Court Rules
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Rescission of Judgment Costs Orders Interpretation of Court Rules

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alpha Media Holdings (Pvt) Ltd

Applicant

Thandiwe Moyo

Applicant

Roger Muhlwa

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Opposed Application / Judgment on Application to Set Aside Amended Order of Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the amendment of the costs order by the Judge a quo was properly sought and granted under Rule 449 (1) (a) of the repealed rules of court
  2. 2 Whether a letter to the registrar can be equated to a formal application for purposes of Rule 449 (1) (a)
  3. 3 Whether the applicant was denied a hearing before the amendment of the costs order

Ratio Decidendi

The application was fatally defective because it was premised on equating a letter to the registrar with a formal application, contrary to the requirements of the rules. The Judge's correction of the costs order was not based on an application but on a letter, and the applicant failed to provide a proper basis for rescission under Rule 449 (1) (a). The applicant also failed to suggest an alternative solution for the costs order. The defects in the application warranted it being struck off the roll with costs.

Court Disposition

Application struck off the roll with costs

Orders

  • The application is struck off the roll with costs.