Automation Technology (Private) Limited and Philemon Macheka v The Sheriff of Zimbabwe N.O and Central Africa Building Society and Central Africa Building Society, Harare

The first respondent (Sheriff) sold Stand Number 8470 Bulawayo Township in execution. The applicants raised an objection to the sale, which was subsequently overruled by the Sheriff. The applicants then sought to review the Sheriff's decision to overrule their objection and to have the sale declared null and void and set aside. The application was brought in terms of Rule 359 of the High Court Rules, which requires such applications to be filed within one month of notification of the Sheriff's decision. The applicants conceded in their papers that the application was not filed within the one-month period prescribed by the rules.

• Whether the application was filed out of time in terms of Rule 359 of the High Court Rules
• Whether the court could invoke Rule 4C to condone the late filing in the absence of a formal condonation application
• Whether the applicants could resile from their admission that they were out of time without formally amending their papers
• The correct interpretation of 'one month' in the context of the High Court Rules - whether it means a calendar month or 30 days

The application was dismissed with costs on a legal practitioner and client scale (higher scale).

1. A party who is out of time must seek condonation through a formal written application and cannot simply rely on the court invoking Rule 4C at the hearing. Failure to do so constitutes a flagrant breach of the rules. 2. In the context of the High Court Rules of Zimbabwe, 'one month' means a period of 30 days from the date of notification, not a full calendar month. 3. The definitions in the Interpretation Act may be departed from under section 2 where their application would be inconsistent with the intention, object, or context of the relevant enactment or rules. 4. An interpretation of time limits that could give a party up to two months to act when the rules prescribe one month would be inconsistent with the spirit and purpose of the rules, which is to ensure efficient administration of justice through reasonable and practical time limits. 5. A party cannot resile from admissions made in their papers without formally amending those papers.

The court respectfully disagreed with the interpretation given by NDOU J in Darky Automotive Pvt Ltd v Matabeleland Hauliers Pvt Ltd regarding the meaning of 'one month' in the High Court Rules, noting that High Court decisions are persuasive rather than binding. The court observed that the applicants' conduct of forging ahead with a crippled application and their flagrant breach of the rules deserved to be frowned upon with punitive costs. The court noted that there was a second point in limine regarding additional grounds for review not before the Sheriff, which sought expungement of those grounds, but did not address this as the first point in limine disposed of the matter. The court commented that the High Court Rules should have a consistent definition of 'month' across all its provisions (citing Rules 236, 63, and 359 as examples).

This case is significant for its interpretation of time periods in the High Court Rules of Zimbabwe. It establishes that 'one month' in the context of procedural rules means 30 days, not a calendar month, to prevent inconsistencies and ensure the efficient administration of justice. The judgment reinforces the principle that parties seeking condonation for late filing must make formal written applications and cannot simply rely on the court invoking its inherent powers (Rule 4C) at the hearing. It emphasizes strict compliance with procedural time limits and that admissions in pleadings cannot be abandoned without formal amendment. The case also clarifies when the Interpretation Act's definitions may be departed from under section 2, where their application would be inconsistent with the intention or context of specific legislation or rules.