Base Minerals Zimbabwe (Pvt) Ltd and Peter Valentine v Mabwe Minerals (Pvt) Ltd and John Richard Needham Groves and Minister of Mines

The applicants sought to have their main application heard. However, the respondents were barred from participating due to their failure to file heads of argument timeously, resulting in an automatic bar. The respondents had filed a separate application (HC 7978/14) seeking upliftment of this bar, which remained undetermined. On 17 September 2014, the respondents' legal practitioners notified the applicants by letter (delivered 19 September 2014) that they would seek postponement if consent to uplift the bar was not given. The applicants did not provide instructions on whether to consent to the upliftment. The application for upliftment of the bar was opposed. The matter arose in the context of extensive litigation between the parties, with at least 11 cross-referenced files relating to the dispute.

• Whether the court should postpone the hearing of the main application pending determination of an application for upliftment of an automatic bar
• Whether the court should proceed to determine a main application where respondents are barred but have a pending application for upliftment of the bar
• The court's inherent power to regulate its own processes

The application was postponed sine die pending the determination of the application for upliftment of the bar filed in HC 7978/14. There was no order as to costs.

Where an application for upliftment of an automatic bar is pending and undetermined, it is improper for the court to adjudicate on the main matter as doing so could invite further litigation. The court has a duty to regulate its own processes, and where it has been called upon to decide on the merits of an application for upliftment of a bar, it is undesirable to proceed with the main application. A party seeking finality cannot oppose both the upliftment of a bar and a postponement to allow the upliftment application to be heard - they cannot have it both ways.

Mathonsi J observed with concern the endless litigation between the parties, noting at least 11 cross-reference files relating to the dispute with no attempt to bring finality. The court stated it would not allow itself to be part of that confusion. The judge also made an obiter comment that if the applicants wanted finality, they should have "cut their losses" by consenting to the upliftment of the bar, thereby allowing the main application to be argued on the merits.

This case illustrates the court's inherent power to regulate its own processes and manage litigation to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and confusion. It demonstrates the principle that where procedural issues (such as applications to uplift bars) are pending, courts may decline to proceed with substantive matters to avoid potential further litigation and ensure procedural fairness. The case also reflects the judiciary's concern with managing prolific litigation and preventing parties from engaging in tactics that perpetuate legal disputes without seeking finality.