Moldon Marketing (Pvt) Ltd v Mpoperi (HH 200 of 2003) [2003] ZWHHC 200 (21 October 2003)
The application was dismissed due to procedural defects, including failure to apply for rescission, improper form of the draft order, and failure to join the deputy sheriff as a party.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2003] ZWHHC 200
- Parties
- Applicant: Moldon Marketing (Pvt) Ltd; Respondent: F Mpoperi
- Court
- Harare High Court
- Jurisdiction
- Zimbabwe
- Case Number
- HH 200 of 2003
- Procedural Posture
- Urgent Chamber Application / Ruling on Application for Urgent Relief
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs
- Legal Topics
- Appeals, Condonation, Urgent Applications, Draft Orders
- 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
Moldon Marketing (Pvt) Ltd
Applicant
F Mpoperi
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Urgent Chamber Application / Ruling on Application for Urgent Relief
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the urgent chamber application was properly before the court
- 2 Whether the applicant was entitled to the relief sought
- 3 Whether procedural defects warranted dismissal
Ratio Decidendi
The application was dismissed due to procedural defects, including failure to apply for rescission, improper form of the draft order, and failure to join the deputy sheriff as a party.
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs
Orders
- Application dismissed with costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
1 HH 200-03 HC 9160/03 MOLDON MARKETING (PVT) LTD versus F MPOPERI HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE KAMOCHA J, HARARE, 22 October, 2003 Mrs Chipetesa for the applicant Mr Musemburi for the respondent KAMOCHA J: This application was brought on a certificate of urgency. After hearing legal practitioners representing the respective parties I dismissed the application with costs. The applicant's legal practitioners have requested for written reasons for the dismissal of the application. These are they. The parties appeared before a labour relations officer who made a decision in favour of the respondent. On 20 May, 2002 the applicant inadvertently noted an appeal with the labour relations tribunal instead of appealing to a senior labour relations officer. Five months down the line the applicant realised its mistake and then launched an application for condonation without applying for rescission at the same time. The respondent was not aware of any application for rescission even at the time the urgent chamber application was argued. The applicant could not produce any such application. The urgent chamber application had other defects. For instance the applicant's founding affidavit was full of argumentative and irrelevant material which had to be struck off. It was also pregnant with case law just like heads of argument. The draft order was in the wrong form. Applicant should have used form 29C. Further the draft order sought to order the deputy sheriff not to proceed to execute against a judgment without making him a party to the proceedings. The matter was handled in such a perfunctory fashion right from the on set up to the time it was argued that its fate was its dismissal with costs. Accordingly it was dismissed with costs. HH 200-03 Mkuhlani Chiperesa, applicant's legal practitioners Madanhi & Associates, respondent's legal practitioners