Emmanuel Handivhunduki Gono v Victor Vavariri Munyikwa and Minister of Lands and Rural Resettlement

The parties were involved in a land dispute over a piece of land. The applicant alleged the land was allocated to him and that the first respondent was in unlawful occupation. The first respondent believed he was in lawful occupation. Multiple related matters had been filed between the parties: (1) An interdict application by the first respondent in the Magistrates Court Masvingo (Int 118/17) where the applicant raised a jurisdictional point in limine which was dismissed; (2) A review application by the applicant (HC 3903/17) challenging the magistrate's dismissal of the jurisdiction point; (3) The first respondent's notice of opposition in the review matter was filed late and he was barred; (4) First respondent filed an application for removal of the bar (HC 4718/17); (5) A separate application for condonation for late filing of the removal of bar application (HC 5570/17); (6) An application for directions for consolidation of all matters (HC 7740/17). The applicant then brought the present application (HC 10038/17) seeking dismissal of matters HC 4718/17, HC 5570/17 and HC 7740/17 for want of prosecution in terms of Order 32 r 236(3)(b). Significantly, the applicant filed this application without furnishing the court with the files of the matters he sought to have dismissed.

• Whether an applicant can properly seek dismissal of multiple separate matters for want of prosecution in a single consolidated application
• Whether the proper procedure under Order 32 r 226 requires separate applications for dismissal of each matter on its own merits
• Whether an application for dismissal for want of prosecution can be granted without the relevant case files being placed before the court

The application was dismissed with costs.

Applications for dismissal for want of prosecution under Order 32 r 226 of the High Court Rules must be brought separately and individually for each matter before a Judge sitting in chambers. Each case has its own merits and the default must be specifically pleaded in each case. An applicant cannot properly consolidate multiple dismissal applications into a single application under a new case number. Failure to comply with the proper procedural requirements renders such an application defective and liable to be dismissed.

The court expressed its view that the applicant was ironically contributing to the very delays he complained about by filing 'useless process' and 'completely unnecessary' applications. The court also commented that it was 'beyond comprehension' why the first respondent had filed certain applications separately (referring to HC 5570/17 being filed separately from HC 4718/17). The court observed that the applicant's conduct in filing an application for dismissal without providing the relevant case files was 'counter-intuitive' and 'mind-boggling'. These observations reflect judicial frustration with poor litigation practice and unnecessary multiplication of proceedings.

This case reinforces the importance of strict compliance with procedural rules in Zimbabwe civil procedure, particularly regarding applications for dismissal for want of prosecution. It establishes that applicants cannot consolidate multiple dismissal applications into a single application but must follow the proper procedure of filing separate applications for each matter to be dismissed. The case serves as a warning against filing unnecessary or improper applications that contribute to court delays while purporting to address delays. It emphasizes the elementary principle that each case must be dealt with on its own merits with proper pleadings specific to that case. The judgment also highlights the court's expectation that parties seeking relief regarding other matters must ensure all relevant files and documentation are properly placed before the court.