Enhanced Mortgaging & Housing (Pvt) Ltd and Gondayi Anvil Marange v Demetria Zirega and Nedbank Private Limited and Master of the High Court

The first applicant is a registered company in Zimbabwe. During his lifetime, Harrison Marange was a director and majority shareholder (51%) of the company. The second applicant is Marange's son and claims to have been appointed CEO by his late father. The first respondent held 21% shares and allegedly cohabited with Marange, though their relationship deteriorated. Marange died on 13 March 2025, with his estate registered under DR 2327/25 pending appointment of an executor. Following his death, a dispute arose between the second applicant and the first respondent. The second applicant alleged that on 9-10 July 2025, the first respondent orchestrated a hostile takeover by changing bank accounts, taking keys to the company safe, and changing locks to company premises at 17 Edmonds Avenue, Belvedere, Harare. The applicants brought an urgent application seeking to restore access to company premises, safes, financial accounts and management systems, and to compel surrender of bank cards for accounts held in the names of Reliable Steelers and Enhanced Power Solution.

• Whether the application met the requirements for urgency under the High Court Rules
• Whether urgency can be established when based on disputed facts
• Whether the relief sought was truly provisional or final in nature
• Whether final relief disguised as interim relief can be granted on the urgent roll

The point in limine on urgency was upheld. The application was struck off the roll of urgent matters as not being urgent. Costs were ordered to be costs in the cause.

An urgent application must satisfy a two-rung test: (1) the applicant must have acted promptly and diligently without unreasonable delay; and (2) the applicant must demonstrate that failure to deal with the matter urgently will cause irreparable harm. Urgency cannot be established when it is based on disputed facts rather than common cause facts or facts not seriously contested. Final relief disguised as provisional/interim relief disqualifies a matter from being treated as urgent, as it defeats the purpose of provisional orders and renders any return date hearing meaningless. Rule 60(9) of the High Court Rules, 2021 does not permit the court to rescue an application seeking final relief disguised as interim relief by converting it into truly provisional relief.

The court observed that the application also faced difficulties regarding non-joinder, as the bank accounts subject to the application were held in the names of Reliable Steelers and Enhanced Power Solution, two companies not party to the litigation, and the relationship between these entities and the first applicant had not been clearly established. The court noted that the matter could be enrolled on the ordinary roll in terms of Rule 60(18). The court departed from the usual rule that costs follow the event, ordering costs in the cause instead, suggesting that neither party's conduct warranted an immediate adverse costs order.

This case reinforces important principles regarding urgent applications in Zimbabwe. It clarifies that urgency cannot be established based on disputed facts and must be founded on common cause or uncontested facts. The judgment is particularly significant for its clear statement that final relief disguised as provisional relief disqualifies a matter from being treated as urgent. The case also demonstrates the limits of the court's discretion under Rule 60(9) of the High Court Rules, 2021 to grant variations to draft orders - such discretion does not extend to converting final relief masquerading as interim relief into genuinely provisional relief. The decision serves as a warning to practitioners against attempting to circumvent ordinary court procedures by seeking final orders through the urgent roll under the guise of interim relief.