SAMAMBWA v AFRICAN CHROME FIELDS (PVT) LTD (97 of 2024) [2024] ZWHHC 97 (11 March 2024)

SAMAMBWA v AFRICAN CHROME FIELDS (PVT) LTD (97 of 2024) [2024] ZWHHC 97 (11 March 2024)

The application was not urgent because the need to act arose on the date judgment was handed down, and applicant's delay was a deliberate choice. The consequences of r 44(2) were clear and known, and urgency cannot arise from circumstances created by a law whose effects are certain. Applicant failed to provide proof of irredeemable commercial prejudice.

Citation
[2024] ZWHHC 97
Parties
Applicant: Ardon Samambwa; Respondent: African Chrome Fields (Pvt) Ltd
Court
Harare High Court
Jurisdiction
Zimbabwe
Judgment Date
11 March 2024
Case Number
97 of 2024
Procedural Posture
Urgent Chamber Application / Ruling on Urgency
Outcome
application removed from the roll of urgent matters with costs to applicant
Legal Topics
Urgency in Applications, Execution Pending Appeal, Rei Vindicatio, Stay of Execution
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Urgency in Applications Execution Pending Appeal Rei Vindicatio Stay of Execution

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 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ardon Samambwa

Applicant

African Chrome Fields (Pvt) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Chamber Application / Ruling on Urgency

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application should be treated as urgent
  2. 2 When the need to act arose for purposes of urgency
  3. 3 Whether commercial prejudice justifies urgency

Ratio Decidendi

The application was not urgent because the need to act arose on the date judgment was handed down, and applicant's delay was a deliberate choice. The consequences of r 44(2) were clear and known, and urgency cannot arise from circumstances created by a law whose effects are certain. Applicant failed to provide proof of irredeemable commercial prejudice.

Court Disposition

application removed from the roll of urgent matters with costs to applicant

Orders

  • The matter is ruled not urgent and is removed from the roll of urgent matters.
  • Applicant to bear costs.