Automated Summary
Key Facts
The first applicant purchased property 7410 Glen View Township through Lightvale Properties. The first and second respondents had earlier acquired the same property via the fifth respondent in January 2013. The first applicant moved onto the property in March 2013 and dispossessed the respondents. The respondents successfully pursued eviction through HH 853/15, resulting in a court order on 4 November 2015. A writ of ejectment was issued on 8 January 2016 and served on 21 January 2016. Applicants now seek urgent stay of execution for the eviction, citing an impending 1 February 2016 deadline, but the court found the urgency self-created due to delayed action.
Issues
- The court assessed the urgency of the applicants' request, determining if it was self-created due to their delayed action in seeking an extension of time for their appeal.
- The applicants sought an extension of time to appeal the decision in HH 853/15, which was previously granted to the respondents, and the court considered the reasons for their delay in initiating the appeal.
Holdings
- The court removed the matter from the roll of urgent matters and ordered costs on a higher scale against the applicants' legal practitioners, noting the lack of valid justification for urgency and the applicants' negligence in pursuing the appeal timeline.
- The court determined that the applicants' matter is not urgent due to their failure to act swiftly, as the need to act arose on 4 November 2015 but they only briefed counsel on 20 November 2015 and filed the Supreme Court application on 29 December 2015. The court emphasized that self-created urgency is not valid under the rules of court, citing Kuvarega v Registrar General and others (1998) and National Police Service Union v National Negotiating Forum.
Remedies
- The Registrar of Deeds shall not proceed to transfer the piece of land described in paragraph 1 pending the hearing of the appeal.
- The respondents shall bear costs of this suit.
- The matter is removed from the urgent roll with costs on a higher scale as it was apparent the matter was not urgent.
- Execution against the judgement of this court in HH 853/15 is hereby stayed pending the determination of the chamber application for extension of time within which to appeal filed under the cover of Case No. SC 723/15.
- The first and second respondents shall pay costs of this suit if the matter is opposed.
- The respondents shall not sell, or dispose or otherwise deal or encumber the property known as 7410 Glen View Township of Glenview measuring 540 square metres pending the hearing of the appeal.
Legal Principles
- The court awarded costs on a higher scale against the applicants' legal practitioners due to the lack of urgency in the matter.
- The court refused to grant an urgent application as the applicants had created their own urgency by failing to act promptly, citing cases like Kuvarega v Registrar General and Others (1998) (1) ZLR 188.
Precedent Name
- Kuvarega v Registrar General and Others
- National Police Service Union and Others v National Negotiating Forum and Others
Judge Name
Justice Matanda-Moyo
Passage Text
- I am thus of the view that this matter is not urgent.
- "Urgency which stems from a deliberate or careless abstention from action until deadline draws near is not the type of urgency contemplated by the rules...."
- However I am of the view that the trigger should be the court order of 4 November 2015.