Blooming Lilly Investments v Peter Valentine and Allen Sibanda and The Provincial Mining Director: Midlands N.O. and The Minister of Mines and Mineral Development N.O.

Blooming Lilly Investments filed an urgent application (HC 2328/22) which was allocated to Mangota J on 7 April 2022. The judge endorsed the matter as not urgent without hearing oral argument. On 14 April 2022, the applicant's counsel requested leave to present oral argument on urgency, relying on Church of the Province of Central Africa v Diocesan Trustees. A related matter (HC 2396/22) involving the same parties was set down for 20 April 2022. At that hearing, the respondents' counsel raised HC 2328/22 and urged the judge not to hear it on the basis that he was functus officio. The third and fourth respondents (Provincial Mining Director and Minister of Mines) filed papers on 12 April 2022 which did not oppose the relief sought. On 20 April 2022, Mangota J ruled he could reconsider the urgency issue based on changed circumstances created by the third and fourth respondents' positions, and set the matter for hearing on 25 April 2022. The first and second respondents then wrote to the Judge President on 21 April 2022 (without copying the applicant) requesting the judge recuse himself. On 25 April 2022, when HC 2328/22 was to be heard, the respondents applied for leave to appeal the 20 April 2022 ruling.

• Whether the judge was functus officio after endorsing the matter as not urgent and could reconsider the issue of urgency after hearing oral argument
• Whether changed circumstances (the third and fourth respondents' non-opposition) distinguished the case from the binding precedent in Madza v The Reformed Church in Zimbabwe
• Whether the application for leave to appeal was procedurally compliant with Rule 94(1)(a) and Rule 94(8) of the High Court Rules 2021
• Whether leave to appeal should be granted against an interlocutory ruling
• Whether the application for leave to appeal was tainted by mala fides

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed with costs.

An application for leave to appeal an interlocutory ruling must comply strictly with the procedural requirements of Rule 94 of the High Court Rules 2021, requiring either an oral application at the time of the ruling or a written application within 12 days with reasons for not applying orally. A judge is not functus officio after endorsing a matter as not urgent without hearing oral argument, particularly where changed circumstances arise (such as additional respondents filing papers expressing non-opposition). An application for leave to appeal that is procedurally defective and tainted with mala fides will be dismissed. Legal practitioners as officers of the court must conduct themselves transparently and not engage in clandestine communications with judicial officers without copying opposing parties.

Mangota J made extensive observations about the proper conduct of legal practitioners as officers of the court. He emphasized that attorneys should maintain an impeccable character, distinguish their professional duties from their clients' inclinations, and avoid being swayed by clients into improper conduct. He noted that applications for judicial recusal must be made openly with proper justification, not through round-about methods or clandestine letters to the Judge President. The judge also observed that the mere fact that a judge has heard multiple matters involving the same parties does not constitute grounds for recusal absent allegations of actual bias or miscarriage of justice. He explained that judges take an oath to dispense justice without fear or favour and that case allocation is done by the registry system, not by judges selecting their own cases. The court also commented on the inappropriateness of attempting to influence the Judge President to interfere with a judge's judicial work, noting that the Judge President lacks capacity to do so.

This case is significant for establishing principles regarding: (1) the functus officio doctrine in the context of urgency endorsements made without oral argument; (2) the procedural requirements for applications for leave to appeal under the High Court Rules 2021, specifically the strict compliance required with Rule 94; (3) the concept of changed circumstances justifying departure from binding precedent; (4) the court's inherent power to maintain order and sanity at disputed locations pending determination of legal issues; and (5) the professional duties of legal practitioners as officers of the court to conduct themselves transparently and not engage in clandestine communications attempting to influence case allocation or judicial recusal. The judgment emphasizes that applications must be genuine and not tainted with ulterior motives or mala fides.