Mathe and Ors v Gazi and others (HC 2045 of 2003) [2004] ZWBHC 70 (19 May 2004)
The interests of justice require that the matter be argued on the same date as the other related matters, rather than proceeding as unopposed due to technicalities in service and representation.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2004] ZWBHC 70
- Parties
- Applicant: Jobe Mathe & 23 Others; Respondent: Jimmy Gazi & 2 Others
- Court
- Bulawayo High Court
- Jurisdiction
- Zimbabwe
- Case Number
- HC 2045 of 2003
- Procedural Posture
- Application / Interlocutory
- Outcome
- Matter to be argued on 21 May 2004 with costs in the cause.
- Legal Topics
- Service of Documents, Representation, Unopposed Roll
- 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
Jobe Mathe & 23 Others
Applicant
Jimmy Gazi & 2 Others
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Application / Interlocutory
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether service of heads of argument was proper given the applicants' legal representation
- 2 Whether the matter should proceed as unopposed due to applicants' failure to file heads of argument
Ratio Decidendi
The interests of justice require that the matter be argued on the same date as the other related matters, rather than proceeding as unopposed due to technicalities in service and representation.
Court Disposition
Matter to be argued on 21 May 2004 with costs in the cause.
Orders
- Matter to be argued on 21 May 2004 with other matters between the parties.
- Costs to be costs in the cause.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Judgment No. HB 70/2004 Case No. HC 2045/03 JOBE MATHE & 23 ORS Versus JIMMY GAZI & 2 ORS IN THE HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE NDOU J BULAWAYO 29 APRIL & 20 MAY 2004 M Ndlovu for applicants R Moyo-Majwabu for respondents Judgment NDOU J: This application is one of the three between the parties. The main matter has been set down for argument in the opposed roll on 21 May 2004. In this particular matter the respondents filed heads of arguments. The heads were not served on the applicants’ legal practitioner but on the first applicant’s given address. At the time of such service, Mr Ndlovu had already assumed agency in the main matter. Respondents’ legal practitioner is aware of this fact. He, however, submits that in respect of this particular matter, Mr Ndlovu had not assumed agency. In the circumstances he did serve the heads of argument at Lazarus and Sarif Legal Practitioners. Technically, he is correct but before this matter was set down on the unapposed roll, Mr Ndlovu addressed a letter to him pointing out that he was indeed representing the applicants even in this matter. The respondents’ legal practitioner nevertheless set the matter down as unopposed on the basis that the applicants failed to file their heads of argument as required by the Rules of this Court. In this case I stand guided by what McNALLY JA said in Sangare v Olivine Industries (Pvt) Ltd 1988 (2) ZLR 210 (S) at 211E-F- HB 70/04 “While courts are inclined to frown upon plaintiffs who “snatch at their judgments” the impression must not be gained that the Rules may be flouted with impunity …” And further at 213A-B the learned Judge of Appeal said- “One is naturally reluctant to reach a decision which would result in the giving of judgment against a person without his being heard, when he protests that he has a valid defence.” This is a balance that I propose to strike between these conflicting interests. Accordingly, I feel that it is in the interest of justice that this matter be argued on the same date as the other matters between the parties. I therefore, direct that the matter be argued on 21 May 2004 when the other matters between the parties with costs being costs in the cause. Lazarus & Sarif applicants’, legal practitioners James, Moyo-Majwabu & Nyoni respondents’ legal practitioners