[Opposed Application HH 444-16]

May 10 and July 27, 2016


Practice and procedure – Urgent chamber application – Struck off the roll – Effect of – Procedure for enrolling matter on correct roll.

The matter had commenced as an urgent chamber application but had been struck off the roll on the basis that it was not urgent. The applicant had simply continued with the prosecution of the matter on the roll of opposed matters. The respondents argued that the matter having been struck off the roll could not be properly enrolled without a special order of court.

Held, that the decision to strike a matter off the roll of urgent matters has the effect of automatically transferring it to the ordinary roll.

Held, further, that there is no procedure set out in the rules to be followed once a matter has been struck off. The court will consider whether any procedure followed by a litigant has occasioned prejudice in the absence of which it will be slow to interfere with the procedure.

Cases cited:

Bindura Municipality v Mugogo 2015 (2) ZLR 237 (S), referred to

Jensen v Acavalos 1993 (1) ZLR 216 (S), distinguished

Matanhire v BP & Shell Marketing Services (Pvt) Ltd 2004 (2)
ZLR 147 (S), referred to

S v Ncube 1990 (2) ZLR 303 (S), referred to

Legislation considered:

High Court Rules, 1971 (RGN 1047 of 1971)

Superior Court Practice Direction, No 3 of 2013

Supreme Court (Miscellaneous Appeals and References) Rules, 1975 (RGN 449 of 1975), rr 4 (2), 7 (b)

T Zhuwarara, for the applicant

T Moyo, for the first respondent

RC Muchenje, for the second respondent

S Nyagura with T Marume, for the third respondent


At the onset of the proceedings Mr Moyo for the first respondent raised a point in limine that this application was on, 23 September 2015, struck off the roll with costs and the court ruled that the matter was not urgent. In terms of Superior Court Practice Direction, No 3 of 2013 (“Practice Direction 3/2013”) issued by the Chief Justice “struck off the roll” is defined as:

“3 The term shall be used to effectively dispose of matters which are fatally defective and should not have been enrolled in that form in the first place.”

This section of the article is only available for our subscribers. Please click here to subscribe to a subscription plan to view this part of the article.

Please click here to login