Concilia Chinanzvana v Minister of Finance and Economic Development and Attorney General Office

The applicant, Concilia Chinanzvana, was an elected Member of Parliament for Mashonaland West Province on the MDC Alliance Party ticket in the 2018 general elections. As a Member of Parliament, she enjoyed a duty rebate on the purchase of a motor vehicle in terms of section 143 of the Customs and Excise (General) Regulations 2001 (SI 154/2001). She purchased a Mazda BT50 vehicle through a loan from Parliament with this duty tax rebate. Following internal disputes in the MDC, she was recalled from Parliament by the Douglas Mwonzora MDC Alliance faction. Parliament, through the Speaker, declared she was no longer an MP. On 19 December 2020, her vehicle was impounded by ZIMRA at Nyabira tollgate. The applicant challenged section 143(6) of the regulations, which provides that if a serving MP ceases to be a member before dissolution of Parliament, the duty rebated becomes immediately due and payable. She had previously filed case HC 1446/22 seeking the same relief, which was struck from the roll by Deme J on 15 November 2022 with specific directions for compliance. Instead of complying with those directions, she filed this new application HC 4516/23 seeking identical relief.

• Whether section 143(6) of the Customs and Excise (General) Regulations 2001 is unconstitutional, irrational and invalid
• Whether the current application is lis pendens given the existence of case HC 1446/22
• Whether a litigant can circumvent a partly-heard case by filing a fresh application for the same relief against the same parties

1. Case No HC 4516/23 is stayed pending finalization of case No HC 1446/22. 2. Costs are reserved.

Where a litigant has filed a case which has been partly heard and struck from the roll with specific directions given by the court for its continuance, the litigant is bound to comply with those directions and cannot circumvent the court's order by filing a fresh application on the same subject matter, between the same parties, and seeking the same relief. Such a fresh application constitutes lis pendens and must be stayed pending finalization of the first matter. The court has a duty to protect its process against abuse by litigants filing multiple cases on the same dispute, and litigants must make every effort to bring their matters to finality rather than parking cases at court or filing duplicate proceedings.

The court made observations about the poor drafting of the draft order with grammar and spelling mistakes, noting that counsel should pay attention to detail when settling court papers. Chitapi J also noted that while initially inclined to order costs against the applicant for bringing about the lis pendens issue, it was best to reserve costs until the matter is finalized. The court acknowledged that it had oversight in allowing parties to address the merits when lis pendens should have been dealt with first, but emphasized it was not too late to correct this. The court also observed that the citation of the Attorney General in the current case was "neither here nor there" since no relief was sought against that office, and similarly the additional citation of ZIMRA in the first case did not affect the lis pendens analysis as the relief really concerned the Minister.

This case reinforces the importance of the lis pendens doctrine in Zimbabwean civil procedure and emphasizes the duty of litigants to comply with court directions and bring matters to finality. It demonstrates the court's power to protect its own processes against abuse through the filing of duplicate applications. The judgment establishes that a partly-heard case with directions given by the court creates a binding obligation on the applicant to comply with those directions rather than circumventing them by filing fresh proceedings. The case also clarifies that the court can raise and determine issues of lis pendens based on court records even where parties do not fully address the issue at hearing, as the court has a duty to protect its own process.