Autoband Investments (Pvt) Ltd t/a Trauma Centre and Streamsleigh Investments (Private) Limited and Dr Vivek Solanki v African Medical Investments Plc and The Sheriff, High Court of Zimbabwe

The litigation began in 2011 when the first applicant (Autoband Investments) successfully obtained an eviction order against the first respondent (African Medical Investments) from premises at 15 Lanark Road, Belgravia, Harare in the Magistrates Court (case MC 16435/11). The second applicant (Streamsleigh Investments), which was not a party to the original Magistrates Court proceedings, filed an urgent application in the High Court (HC 10126/11) seeking to declare the eviction order of no force and effect. That application was dismissed. The second applicant appealed to the Supreme Court (SC 43/14), which upheld the appeal. Armed with the Supreme Court order, the second applicant applied for leave to execute (SC 72/14), which was granted despite the first applicant filing an appeal to the Constitutional Court. Following this, the applicants filed the present urgent application in the High Court seeking an interdict to prevent the first respondent from evicting the first applicant from the property. Dr. Solanki deposed to the affidavit as CEO of the first applicant and owner of the second applicant.

• Whether the application was urgent
• Whether the applicants treated the matter with the urgency it deserved
• Whether the High Court had jurisdiction to interdict execution of a Supreme Court order
• Whether the applicants were engaged in forum shopping by bringing the application to the High Court when the Supreme Court had conclusively determined the matter
• Whether the first respondent was properly cited as a party when it posed no threat to the applicants' interests

1. The application was dismissed. 2. The applicants were ordered to pay costs on the scale of legal practitioner and client.

The binding legal principle is that the High Court does not have jurisdiction to grant relief that would have the effect of interfering with or setting aside an order of the Supreme Court. A lower court cannot undo what a higher court has conclusively determined. Where a party seeks to place additional facts before a court that has already determined a matter, the proper procedure is to apply to that same court for reconsideration, not to approach a different or lower court. Forum shopping - approaching different courts to obtain a favorable result after a higher court has ruled - is an abuse of process that will be censured by the courts.

The court observed that it remained alive to the fact that the order intended to be executed emanated from the Supreme Court, and as it was seized with the application, it placed a temporary interdict on execution pending its determination, demonstrating that due process should be allowed to continue in an unhindered manner. The court also noted its appreciation for the legal practitioners on both sides, stating their arguments were extremely persuasive and the authorities cited enriched the court's mind in a very appreciable manner. The court commented that the applicants "knew that what they were doing was a legal impossibility and they, all the same, proceeded to act in the manner which they did," suggesting the application may have been brought in bad faith or with full knowledge of its impropriety.

This case is significant in Zimbabwean (not South African) jurisprudence as it reinforces the principle of court hierarchy and the doctrine that a lower court cannot interfere with or set aside orders of a higher court. It emphasizes the impropriety of forum shopping and the requirement that parties dissatisfied with Supreme Court orders must pursue remedies in the appropriate forum (either the Supreme Court itself or the Constitutional Court on appeal), rather than attempting to circumvent higher court decisions by applying to lower courts. The case also demonstrates the court's willingness to impose punitive costs on parties who abuse court processes.