The applicant was a serving member of the Zimbabwe Republic Police who brought an urgent chamber application seeking interim relief to prevent the respondents from detaining her pending an appeal decision. She sought orders declaring the appeal record complete, setting aside a decision treating her appeal as abandoned, and deeming all her processes filed within time. When the matter initially appeared before Hungwe J, the applicant's counsel made serious allegations against the respondents regarding breaches of the applicant's right to a fair hearing. The court directed further affidavits be filed and heads of argument submitted. The matter was postponed to 17 September 2013 for filing of affidavits and heads of argument. By 13 September 2013, only affidavits had been filed. The court directed heads of argument to be filed within fourteen days from 11 October 2013, with the applicant filing first. The applicant failed to file her heads of argument and the proceedings stalled. The respondents wrote to the registrar expressing frustration and requesting the matter be decided on the papers.
The application was dismissed with costs on a legal practitioner-client scale de bonis proprii (costs to be paid by the legal practitioners personally from their own property).
Where an applicant in urgent proceedings makes serious allegations against respondents that are demonstrated to be untrue through further affidavits, fails to file heads of argument as directed by the court despite being given adequate time, and where the supporting affidavits may contain perjured statements, the court is entitled to treat the application as abandoned and dismiss it. Furthermore, where legal practitioners have conducted themselves unprofessionally by filing applications based on untrue claims and possible perjury, and then fail to prosecute the matter, the court may impose costs on a legal practitioner-client scale de bonis proprii as a form of censure.
Hungwe J observed that the conduct of the applicant's legal practitioners was "highly unprofessional and deplorable and requires censure." The court noted that the deponent to the applicant's answering affidavit may have perjured herself, and suggested this could be the reason why no one from the law firm wished to distance themselves from the application. These observations emphasize the court's concern about the integrity of legal practitioners and the importance of truthfulness in affidavits filed before the court.
This case illustrates the court's willingness to impose punitive costs orders against legal practitioners personally where an applicant makes unfounded allegations, fails to prosecute the matter diligently after being given opportunities to do so, and where there are indications of possible perjury in affidavits filed. It demonstrates the standards of professionalism expected from legal practitioners and the consequences of falling below those standards. The case also reinforces the principle that parties must comply with court directions and timeously file required documents, failing which their matter may be deemed abandoned.