Alexander Mukwindidza v Shadreck Sithole N.O (In his capacity as the Chairperson of the Disciplinary Committee, Ministry of Primary and Secondary Education) and Minister of Primary and Secondary Education N.O

The applicant was served with a notice of disciplinary hearing in October 2020, scheduled for 18 November 2020, arising from allegations of improper association. The applicant's legal practitioners requested certain documents to prepare for the hearing, but the respondents maintained that all documents had already been served. The hearing was postponed indefinitely on 18 November 2020 due to the Covid-19 pandemic. A new hearing date was set for 10 March 2021, which was mutually postponed to 1 April 2021. The applicant sought assurances regarding Covid-19 preventative measures at the hearing. When the respondents insisted the hearing would proceed on 1 April 2021, the applicant approached the court on urgent basis on 18 March 2021, seeking an interdict to stop the disciplinary hearing on grounds that: (1) failure to furnish requested documents would violate the audi alteram partem rule; and (2) failure to give assurances regarding Covid-19 preventative measures would expose attendees to health risks.

• Whether the matter constituted an urgent application warranting preferential treatment under Order 32, Rule 244
• Whether the application complied with Rule 241(1) requiring use of Form 29B
• Whether the applicant had treated the matter as urgent
• Whether the requirements for a prohibitory interdict were met
• Whether self-created urgency can warrant urgent court intervention

1. The matter be and is hereby struck off the roll. 2. The applicant shall bear the costs.

1. A matter is treated as urgent only if the party bringing the matter has treated it as urgent from the time the cause of action arose. 2. Self-created urgency stemming from deliberate or careless abstention from action is not the urgency envisaged by the rules entitling an applicant to preferential treatment. 3. Rule 241(1) requiring chamber applications to be on Form 29B is peremptory and non-compliance requires proper condonation with satisfactory explanation. 4. Urgency arises when an event occurs requiring contemporaneous resolution, and the applicant must exhibit urgency in the manner of reaction to the event. 5. The action taken when the need to act has arisen must be effectual action in the protection of one's rights in averting impending peril, not merely correspondence. 6. Urgent applications are extraordinary remedies allowing parties to jump the queue and should only be granted in exceptional circumstances.

The court observed that in the ordinary run of things, court cases must be heard strictly on a first come first served basis. The court noted that court operations for urgent matters were not disrupted by the national lockdown, with essential services remaining operational as confirmed by Chief Justice Practice Direction 1/21. The court commented that even if condonation were granted for non-compliance with Form 29B, the application would still fail on the grounds of lack of urgency. The court referenced that it is common knowledge that the court operations for urgent matters continued during lockdown, emphasizing that the applicant had ample opportunity to approach the court earlier.

This case reinforces important principles in Zimbabwean civil procedure regarding urgent applications. It emphasizes that courts will not grant preferential treatment through the urgent chamber book to parties who have not themselves treated matters as urgent. The judgment is significant for establishing that self-created urgency through delay or abstention from action does not warrant jumping the queue on the court roll. It also underscores the strict interpretation of procedural rules, particularly the peremptory nature of Rule 241(1) requiring proper forms for chamber applications. The case provides guidance on what constitutes urgency in the context of employment disciplinary proceedings and reaffirms that litigants must take effectual action when the need to protect their rights arises, not merely engage in correspondence.