1
HH 507 - 15
HC 620/15
REGAL INSURANCE COMPANY (PRIVATE) LIMITED
versus
ZIMBABWE REVENUE AUTHORITY
and
THE REGIONAL MANAGER N.O
HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE
MWAYERA J
HARARE, 28 January 2015, 27 May 2015
Urgent Chamber Application
MWAYERA J: On 28 January 2015 upon perusal of the applicant’s papers which was brought before me through the urgent book I removed the matter from the urgent roll as I did not view the application as urgent. On 17 March 2015 the applicants through their counsel by a letter dated 11 March 2015 requested for reasons for my finding that the matter is not urgent.
The applicant in the application sought:
1. TERMS OF THE FINAL ORDER
(a) That the judgement made by the magistrate court in case 444/14 on 15 January 2015 be and is hereby suspended until case HC 591/15 is determined.
(b) The respondents pay the costs of suit on an attorney and client scale.
2. TEMPORARY RELIEF GRANTED
Pending the determination of the issues in paragraph 1above the applicant is granted the following:
(a) The 1st and 2nd respondents be and are hereby ordered to reinstate the possession of certain premises commonly known as the Insurance Building at Beitbridge to the applicant forthwith failing their doing so the Sherriff or his assistant be and is hereby instructed to execute this order to give effect to it.
The applicant was evicted from premises following a court order of 15 January 2015. It is that eviction which promoted the applicants to approach this court through the urgent chamber book. An application falls or stands on the founding affidavit. The founding affidavit filed of record does not disclose why the matter should be given preferential treatment justifying its jumping the queue, to be heard on urgent basis. There is nothing in the founding affidavit and certificate of urgency clothing the application with the urgent status contemplated by the rules of this court.
A matter is urgent in circumstances where from the cause of action and nature of relief sought the matter is one which cannot wait for ordinary set down. It would be a matter which waiting would make hollow an relief sought at a later stage. In other words if a matter is such that if processed through ordinary set down irreparable harm would be occasioned then immediate relief on urgent basis ought to be resorted to.
The celebrated case of Kuvarega v Registrar General and Another 1998(1) ZLR 188 which has been quoted with approval in several other cases including Document Support Centre (Pvt) Ltd v Mapurire 2006 (2) ZLR 240 and Independent Financial Services Pvt Ltd v Colshot Investment P/L 2003 (2) ZLR 494 settled what constitutes urgency. The requirements of urgency are anchored on the principle that the matter ought to be one which cannot wait, for waiting would occasion irreparable harm and render any future intervention hollow.
In casu the certificate of urgency by the legal practitioner does not bring out to light the urgency of the matter. It simply alleges that the court order was wrongly granted without an elaboration of how that conclusion is reached. The legal practitioner who signed the certificate of urgency does not seem to have applied his mind to the facts. Both the certificate of urgency and founding affidavit do not justify why the application, should be accorded urgent status justifying preferential treatment. What comes out from the certificate of urgency and founding affidavit is that the applicant is experiencing hardship from carrying out the court order. The nature of relief sought that is the provisional order is of a final nature appears defective. The nature of relief sought and the cause of action fall far short of meeting the requirements of urgency. The matter is not one which cannot wait and it is not one which if not entertained on urgent basis will occasion irreparable harm. There is no urgency disclosed in both the certificate of urgency and founding affidavit clothing the application as one falling for urgent intervention.
It is for these reasons that the application was viewed as not meeting the requirements of urgency contemplated by the rules of this court and thus removed it from the urgent roll.
It is accordingly ordered that :
The matter is not urgent and it is removed from the urgent roll.
Chigwanda, applicants’ legal practitioners
Kantor & Immerman, respondents’ legal practitioners