FBC Bank Ltd v RIOZIM Ltd & Anor (HC 2530 of 2015) [2015] ZWHHC 576 (23 June 2015)
The order prepared by the registrar was a nullity as it was based on a draft order with a cancelled judicial signature; the court has power under rule 449 to correct such errors mero motu.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2015] ZWHHC 576
- Parties
- Applicant: FBC Bank Limited; First Respondent: Riozim Limited; Second Respondent: The Registrar of High Court
- Court
- Harare High Court
- Jurisdiction
- Zimbabwe
- Case Number
- HC 2530 of 2015
- Procedural Posture
- Chamber Application for Directions / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Erroneous Order and Costs
- Outcome
- Order by registrar cancelled as a nullity; no order as to costs.
- Legal Topics
- Correction of Court Orders, Costs Orders, Procedural Error
- 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
FBC Bank Limited
Applicant
Riozim Limited
First Respondent
The Registrar of High Court
Second Respondent
Procedural Posture
Chamber Application for Directions / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Erroneous Order and Costs
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the order issued by the registrar was valid given the judge's cancelled signature
- 2 Whether costs debonis propriis and at a higher scale were properly awarded
Ratio Decidendi
The order prepared by the registrar was a nullity as it was based on a draft order with a cancelled judicial signature; the court has power under rule 449 to correct such errors mero motu.
Court Disposition
Order by registrar cancelled as a nullity; no order as to costs.
Orders
- The order issued by the registrar dated 15 April 2015 is cancelled.
- There is no order as to costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
1 HH 576-15 HC 2530/15 FBC BANK LIMITED versus RIOZIM LIMITED and THE REGISTRAR OF HIGH COURT HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE BHUNU J HARARE, 15 April 2015and 05 & 24 June 2015 Chamber Application for Directions N. R. Mutasa, for the applicant Ms D. Ndawana, for the respondent BHUNU J: This matter came before me as an application for the case number HC 923/15 to be set down on an urgent basis. The draft order sought reads: “IT IS ORDERED THAT 1. The matter under case No. HC 923/15 be set down for hearing on urgent basis on the day of 2015 at am/pm for confirmation/or discharge of the Provisional Order granted on 5 February 2015. 2. The Second Respondent shall ensure that the matter is enrolled for a hearing on the said date. 3. The First Respondent shall pay the costs of this application on a legal practitioner and client scale jointly and severally with their legal Practitioner Ms Duduzile Ndawana debones propriis.” The file then came before me on 15 April 2015. I initially in error mistakenly treated the matter as unopposed and endorsed on the record of proceedings, “Default order granted in terms of the draft’. Upon realising my error I cancelled the endorsement together with my signature on the draft order. I am now not quite sure what happened because the record now shows that after the cancelation I again endorsed on the face of the record of proceedings, ‘Order granted in terms of the Draft.’ I however did not sign the draft order for the second time. In error the Registrar prepared an order using a draft order with my cancelled signature. HH 576-15 HC 2530/15 On 4 June 2015 Ms Ndawana wrote complaining about the award of costs debonis propriis. I then set down the matter for a hearing in chambers. At that hearing I explained that the costs debonis propriis had been granted in error and corrected the error in terms of r 449. At that hearing Ms Ndawana sought to query the order of costs at the higher scale. My response was that as her initial complaint was specific to costs debonis propriis she was restricted to that point raised. This prompted Ms Ndawana to write again to the registrar complaining about the costs at the higher scale. It is only then upon closer scrutiny of the record of proceedings that I discovered that the registrar in error had prepared an order using a draft order with my cancelled signature. What this means is that the whole order prepared by the registrar was made in error and therefore a nullity. The faulty order can be corrected mero motu by cancellation in terms of r 449. It is accordingly ordered: 1. That the order issued by the registrar in this matter dated 15 April 2015 be and is hereby cancelled. 2. That there is no order as to costs. Costa and Mudzonga, applicant’s legal practitioners Gill Godlonton and Gerrans, respondent’s legal practitioners