Divine Homes (Pvt) Ltd v Sheriff & Anor (HH 7 of 2004) [2004] ZWHHC 7 (20 January 2004)
Although respondents were largely to blame for repeatedly setting down the matter, the applicant's failure to object mitigated their blameworthiness, so costs on a higher scale are not justified.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2004] ZWHHC 7
- Parties
- Applicant: Divine Homes (Pvt) Ltd; Respondent: The Sheriff; Respondent: H S M Ushewokunze
- Court
- Harare High Court
- Jurisdiction
- Zimbabwe
- Case Number
- HH 7 of 2004
- Procedural Posture
- Opposed Application / Interlocutory (postponement and Costs)
- Outcome
- Application for postponement granted; costs awarded on ordinary scale.
- Legal Topics
- Postponement, Costs, Acquiescence
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Divine Homes (Pvt) Ltd
Applicant
The Sheriff
Respondent
H S M Ushewokunze
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Opposed Application / Interlocutory (postponement and Costs)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the matter should be postponed sine die pending Supreme Court determination
- 2 Whether respondents should pay costs on a higher scale for repeatedly setting down the matter
Ratio Decidendi
Although respondents were largely to blame for repeatedly setting down the matter, the applicant's failure to object mitigated their blameworthiness, so costs on a higher scale are not justified.
Court Disposition
Application for postponement granted; costs awarded on ordinary scale.
Orders
- Matter postponed sine die pending Supreme Court decision in case number 6491/02
- Respondents to pay applicant's costs on the ordinary scale jointly and severally, one paying and the other to be absolved
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
HH 7 /2004 HC 523/03 DIVINE HOMES (PVT) LTD versus THE SHERIFF And H S M USHEWOKUNZE HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE BHUNU J HARARE, 10 December 2003 and 21 January 2004 Mr Chikumbirike, for the applicant Mr Matinenga, for the respondent Opposed Application BHUNU J: In this case both counsel are agreed that the matter should be postponed sine die pending the determination of the Supreme Court in an appeal against the judgment of MAVANGIRA J in case No. 6491/02 which has a bearing on the outcome of this case. The only issue which arises is the issue of wasted costs. Counsel for the applicant seeks costs on a higher scale on the basis that the respondents through their counsel repeatedly set down the matter for hearing well knowing of the pending judgment in the Supreme Court which may have the effect of disposing of this matter. It is not in dispute that the respondents set down this matter for hearing on numerous occasions well knowing of the pending determination in the Supreme Court. The respondents however resist paying costs at the higher scale or at all on the basis that the applicant acquiesced to the numerous set downs when it failed to object. The applicant countered that when the matter was set down they had no option but to appear and then object at the hearing. The evidence on record however establishes that although the matter was set down on numerous occasions the applicant did not object raising the issue of the pending determination in the Supreme court. HH 07/04 HC 523/03 There is therefore some merit in the respondent's submission that the applicants to some extent acquiesced to the numerous set downs well knowing of the effect of the pending determination in the Supreme Court. Despite that finding I consider that the respondents were to a large extent to blame for repeatedly setting down the matter for hearing well knowing that it was inappropriate to set down the matter at that stage. The applicant's acquiescence in failing to object to the set downs has the effect of mitigating the respondent's blameworthiness such that there is no justification for awarding costs on a higher scale. In the result it is ordered: 1) That the matter be and is hereby postponed sine die pending the Supreme Court decision in case number 6491/02 2) That the respondents be and are hereby ordered to pay the applicant's costs on the ordinary scale jointly and severally, one paying and the other to be absolved. Chikumbirike and Associates, legal practitioners for applicant Dube Manikai and Hwacha, legal practitioners for respondent