Ellen Mbuvah v James Ranganai Mangachena & Another and 7 other consolidated matters

In case number 3891/12, the applicant filed a chamber application for a provisional order against the respondent. The provisional order was granted and served on the respondent. The respondent did not oppose the confirmation of the provisional order. The applicant then filed a notice of set down for the hearing and confirmation of the provisional draft order in court. However, instead of filing a proper court application, the application was set down for hearing still in the form of a chamber application. The rules for setting down a case as a court application were not followed. Similar procedural irregularities occurred in the other consolidated matters listed.

• Whether a chamber application can be properly set down and heard in court without complying with the rules for court applications
• The correct procedural format and requirements for distinguishing between chamber applications and court applications under Order 32 of the High Court Rules
• Whether default judgments on simple claims should be set down in court

All the above matters were removed from the roll with direction that they must be set down in terms of the appropriate rules and format.

A chamber application made under Rule 226(1)(b) and Rule 241 (Form 29B) cannot be set down and heard in court as a court application without being converted to the proper court application format required under Rule 226(1)(a) and Rule 230 (Form 29). When a matter commences as a chamber application but requires a court order to be made in open court, it must wear its correct court application jacket and comply with the rules for court applications. The correct procedural format must be followed when seeking orders from a judge in chambers versus seeking orders from the court.

The court observed that while a judge has discretion to direct that a court application be heard in chambers or that a chamber application be heard in court if he sees fit, this does not dispense with the requirement to follow the correct format. The court also commented that there is no justification for default judgments on simple claims to be set down in court, although there are specific exceptions such as matrimonial cases and certain claims for damages which are properly made as court applications.

This case provides important clarification on the procedural requirements for chamber applications versus court applications in Zimbabwean civil procedure. It establishes clear guidance on the proper forms and procedures to be followed under Order 32 of the High Court Rules, particularly Rules 226, 230 and 241. The judgment serves as a directive to legal practitioners on the necessity of complying with the correct procedural format when seeking relief from the court, and emphasizes that procedural rules must be strictly followed. The fact that the judge consulted with other judges and received their concurrence suggests this was intended as a binding directive for the High Court.