On 14 September 2010, the respondent obtained a default judgment against the applicant for US$23,400.00 plus interest and costs under case HC 5254/10. The applicant claimed he only became aware of the summons on 8 September 2010 when it was left in his letter box by Kurt Rusike, although the summons had been served at his business address on 13 August 2010. The applicant entered an appearance to defend on 10 September 2010. On 15 October 2010, the respondent's legal practitioners informed the applicant of the default judgment and threatened execution. On 18 October 2010, the applicant became aware of the judgment. On 22 October 2010, the applicant filed an urgent chamber application for a stay of execution pending determination of a rescission application filed simultaneously under HC 7538/10. The applicant argued he was not in willful default and denied being indebted to the respondent.
The application was dismissed with costs for lack of urgency.
An application for stay of execution lacks urgency where the applicant fails to act timeously from the moment the need to respond to judicial process arises. Urgency that stems from deliberate or careless abstention from action until execution is imminent is not the type of urgency contemplated by the rules. The duty to enquire about progress in litigation and to act diligently rests with the party facing legal proceedings, and failure to discharge this duty cannot subsequently be cured by claiming urgency when faced with imminent execution.
The court made observations on the improbability of the applicant's version of events regarding how and when he received the summons. Specifically, the court found it unlikely that Kurt Rusike would keep summons for nearly a month and then merely drop them in a letter box rather than personally handing them over, given the significant delay. The court also noted that given the deteriorated relationship between the parties, the applicant should have known the respondent was serious about the litigation and should have followed up on the court process. The court indicated that had urgency been established, it would have considered the merits of the application, suggesting a possible two-stage approach to urgent applications.
This case reinforces the strict application of urgency principles in Zimbabwean civil procedure, particularly the principle established in Kuvarega v Registrar General that self-created urgency through delay or abstention from timeous action does not constitute the type of urgency contemplated by court rules. It demonstrates that parties must act diligently upon becoming aware of legal proceedings and cannot delay action until execution is imminent and then claim urgency. The case also shows that courts will scrutinize the credibility of explanations for delay and apply a test of probability to factual assertions.