Mhenyu v Mlaudzi (HB 88 of 2016; HC 473 of 2016; XREF BB 189 of 2012; XREF HCA 25 of 2013) [2016] ZWBHC 88 (18 March 2016)

Mhenyu v Mlaudzi (HB 88 of 2016; HC 473 of 2016; XREF BB 189 of 2012; XREF HCA 25 of 2013) [2016] ZWBHC 88 (18 March 2016)

The application was improperly brought as an urgent application for final relief and reinstatement of appeal, with urgency being self-created due to applicant's inaction after notification of lapse. Such applications are not permissible under the rules, and costs are warranted on a higher scale for disregard of procedure.

Citation
[2016] ZWBHC 88
Parties
Applicant: Solomon Mhenyu; Respondent: Ruth Mlaudzi
Court
Bulawayo High Court
Jurisdiction
Zimbabwe
Judgment Date
18 March 2016
Case Number
HB 88 of 2016 ; HC 473 of 2016 ; XREF BB 189 of 2012 ; XREF HCA 25 of 2013
Procedural Posture
Urgent Chamber Application / Ruling on Urgency and Costs
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Urgent Applications, Reinstatement of Appeal, Stay of Execution, Costs
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Urgent Applications Reinstatement of Appeal Stay of Execution Costs

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Solomon Mhenyu

Applicant

Ruth Mlaudzi

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Chamber Application / Ruling on Urgency and Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant can seek reinstatement of an appeal and condonation by urgent application
  2. 2 Whether urgency was self-created and justifies hearing the matter on an urgent basis
  3. 3 Whether costs should be awarded on a higher scale

Ratio Decidendi

The application was improperly brought as an urgent application for final relief and reinstatement of appeal, with urgency being self-created due to applicant's inaction after notification of lapse. Such applications are not permissible under the rules, and costs are warranted on a higher scale for disregard of procedure.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • The hearing of the matter as urgent is hereby refused.
  • The applicant shall bear the respondent’s costs on a legal practitioners and client scale.