The applicant was issued with an offer letter by the 5th respondent (Minister responsible for Land Reform) to occupy a farm. He moved onto the farm. The 1st and 2nd respondents (Boheke Farming and Kenneth Sherriffs) filed an application in HC 5075/08 alleging interference with their occupation and seeking ejectment. On 25 August 2008, a provisional order was granted by consent ejecting the applicant from the farm. At the time of the initial offer letter, the 5th respondent had not yet acquired the farm. On 29 August 2008, the 5th respondent acquired the farm and issued another offer letter to the applicant on 2 September 2008. On 5 September 2008, the applicant filed a notice of appeal against the provisional order without seeking leave to appeal. On 10 September 2008, the 1st and 2nd respondents issued a writ of eviction and the applicant was removed. The applicant then sought an interdict preventing his ejection pending the determination of his appeal.
The application was dismissed with costs.
The binding legal principles established are: (1) A consent order granted at common law (orally before the court) is as valid and binding as one granted under Rule 54 of the High Court Rules (formal written consent); (2) A judgment by consent is not appealable because it contains no findings of fact or rulings of law that can form the subject matter of an appeal; (3) Where a legal practitioner indicates consent to judgment on behalf of a client in open court, the client is bound by such consent unless it is shown that the legal practitioner lacked authority to consent; (4) A proceeding founded on an invalid or null act is itself automatically null and void - "you cannot put something on nothing and expect it to stay there"; (5) An urgent chamber application premised on an invalid notice of appeal is itself invalid and cannot stand.
The court made obiter observations on the second ground raised by the respondents, namely that even if the consent order issue did not invalidate the appeal, the interim relief granted in HC 5075/08 was interlocutory in nature rather than final and definitive in effect. CHATUKUTA J observed that paragraph 9 of the interim relief should be read together with paragraph 2 of the final relief sought, and that the applicant's right to occupy the farm would only be determined at the final stage. Therefore, the applicant would have been required to seek leave to appeal under section 43 of the High Court Act, which he failed to do. The court also noted the distinction between consent orders under Rule 54 and common law consent orders, suggesting that Rule 56 (which allows for setting aside consent judgments on good cause shown) might be amended to apply to all consent judgments to remove any doubt.</obiter_dicta> </invoke>
This case is significant in Zimbabwean civil procedure law for: (1) clarifying that consent orders can be validly granted both under the High Court Rules (Rule 54) and at common law, with both forms being equally binding; (2) reaffirming the principle that judgments by consent are not appealable as there are no findings of fact or rulings of law to appeal against; (3) establishing that legal practitioners have ostensible authority to consent to judgment on behalf of their clients, and a heavy onus rests on the client to disavow such consent; (4) applying the Macfoy principle that proceedings founded on a nullity are themselves null and void; and (5) distinguishing between interim relief that is final and definitive in effect versus relief that is truly interlocutory and requires leave to appeal.