Mawire & Ors v Lunga & Ors (HC 643 of 2016; HCB 2935 of 2015; HH 140 of 2016; REF HCB 896 of 2015) [2016] ZWHHC 140 (24 February 2016)

Mawire & Ors v Lunga & Ors (HC 643 of 2016; HCB 2935 of 2015; HH 140 of 2016; REF HCB 896 of 2015) [2016] ZWHHC 140 (24 February 2016)

The application was not urgent as urgency was self-created and applicants did not act promptly. The legal practitioners acted negligently in failing to represent their clients diligently, causing default judgment. Their conduct warrants costs de bonis propriis on a higher scale, jointly and severally with applicants.

Citation
[2016] ZWHHC 140
Parties
Applicant: Jonah Gumo Mawire; Applicant: Shelter Muchechesi Mpofu; Applicant: Prince Nyepanai Guta; Applicant: Thomas Tongai Samunda; Respondent: Barbra Lunga; Respondent: Barbra Lunga N. O.; Respondent: Master of the High Court N. O.; Respondent: The Sheriff of Zimbabwe N. O.
Court
Harare High Court
Jurisdiction
Zimbabwe
Judgment Date
24 February 2016
Case Number
HC 643 of 2016 ; HCB 2935 of 2015 ; HH 140 of 2016 ; REF HCB 896 of 2015
Procedural Posture
Urgent Chamber Application / Ruling on Urgency and Costs
Outcome
Application removed from urgent roll; costs awarded against applicants and their legal practitioners on a higher scale de bonis propriis.
Legal Topics
Urgency in Applications, Costs De Bonis Propriis, Stay of Execution, Legal Practitioner Conduct
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Legal Practice Urgency in Applications Costs De Bonis Propriis Stay of Execution Legal Practitioner Conduct

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 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jonah Gumo Mawire

Applicant

Shelter Muchechesi Mpofu

Applicant

Prince Nyepanai Guta

Applicant

Thomas Tongai Samunda

Applicant

Barbra Lunga

Respondent

Barbra Lunga N. O.

Respondent

Master of the High Court N. O.

Respondent

The Sheriff of Zimbabwe N. O.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Chamber Application / Ruling on Urgency and Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application for stay of execution is urgent
  2. 2 Whether costs de bonis propriis should be awarded against applicants and their legal practitioners

Ratio Decidendi

The application was not urgent as urgency was self-created and applicants did not act promptly. The legal practitioners acted negligently in failing to represent their clients diligently, causing default judgment. Their conduct warrants costs de bonis propriis on a higher scale, jointly and severally with applicants.

Court Disposition

Application removed from urgent roll; costs awarded against applicants and their legal practitioners on a higher scale de bonis propriis.

Orders

  • The matter is removed from the roll to urgent matters.
  • The applicants together with their legal practitioners jointly and severally pay costs on a higher scale de bonis propriis.