In October 2011, the defendant (Mrs R. Gumbo N.O.) conducted an auction wherein she put certain machinery belonging to All Metal Founders (Pvt) Ltd for sale. The plaintiff (Appellation Enterprises) offered to purchase the machinery for USD 20,000.00, which offer was accepted and paid. Despite receiving payment, the defendant allegedly refused to deliver the machinery. The plaintiff claimed it had a standing order for the machinery for USD 75,900.00 and suffered prejudice in that amount due to the defendant's failure to deliver. The plaintiff issued summons claiming USD 75,700.00 (there is a discrepancy in the amounts stated). The defendant entered appearance to defend and on the same day (3 January 2012) filed a letter of complaint, exception, heads of argument, and request for set down, all simultaneously, without following the proper procedural requirements set out in Rules 138-140 of the court rules.
The court ordered that the plaintiff respond to the defendant's complaint by forwarding a further and better statement of the nature of its claim. There was no order as to costs.
The binding principle established is that compliance with Rules 138-140 regarding the filing of exceptions is required to give effect to the purpose of those rules - namely, to afford the party whose pleadings are challenged a reasonable opportunity to amend and remove the cause of complaint before the exception is prosecuted. A party filing an exception must first send a letter of complaint stating the nature of the complaint and allow the other party time to respond before filing the exception and setting it down for hearing. Filing all documents simultaneously (letter of complaint, exception, heads of argument, and request for set down) on the same day defeats the purpose of the rules and is procedurally defective.
The court observed that while there were some contradictory matters in the plaintiff's pleadings (such as which party made the offer) and no proper basis for the claim of prejudice, and discrepancies in the amounts claimed (USD 75,700.00 vs USD 75,900.00), these issues were not definitively addressed on the merits. The court noted that the plaintiff could have exercised its right to respond to the defendant's complaint once it pointed out the procedural error, but failed to do so. The court also commented that submissions on the merits were premature given the procedural defects and therefore declined to address them.
This case is significant in Zimbabwean civil procedure for emphasizing the importance of strict compliance with procedural rules governing exceptions and special pleas. It clarifies that the purpose of Rules 138-140 is to give parties a meaningful opportunity to rectify defective pleadings before an exception is heard. The case demonstrates the court's willingness to exercise its discretionary powers under Rule 141 to ensure fairness and procedural justice, even where both parties have failed to follow proper procedure. It also illustrates that the use of permissive language ('may') in procedural rules does not necessarily make compliance optional where there is a clear purpose for the procedure.