Hoopwestern Investments (Pvt) Ltd t/a Afri Mining and Others v Lafarge Cement Zimbabwe Limited and Another

The applicants filed an urgent chamber application for stay of execution. Prior to this, on 3 February 2020, the first respondent (Lafarge Cement) had obtained an interim order from Tsanga J in HC 670/20 directing the applicants to return certain property within 48 hours, including a wheel loader, tipper trucks, and excavators. The applicants had not complied with Tsanga J's order, nor had they appealed it. When the applicants approached the court seeking a stay of execution in the present matter, the first respondent argued that the court should decline jurisdiction because the applicants had not complied with the earlier court order and thus approached the court with "dirty hands". The first respondent claimed it was impossible to comply with the earlier order as it was not in possession of the listed property, but had never approached the court to have the order corrected, amended, or set aside.

• Whether a court should exercise jurisdiction in favour of a party that has failed to comply with an extant court order (the 'dirty hands' doctrine)
• Whether non-compliance with a court order bars a party from approaching the court until the contempt is purged
• Whether a party claiming impossibility of compliance with a court order must approach the court for correction or variation under Rule 29(1)(b)

1. By reason of the applicants' non-compliance with the order granted by Tsanga J in Case No. HC 670/20, the court declined its jurisdiction until such time as the applicants have purged their non-compliance. 2. The applicants were ordered to pay the first respondent's costs.

A court may decline jurisdiction to hear an application brought by a party that has failed to comply with an extant court order until such non-compliance or contempt has been purged. Court orders remain valid and must be obeyed until set aside or overturned on appeal or review, and enjoy a presumption of validity until declared otherwise by a competent court. A party must comply with a court order even if they disagree with it, and may argue or complain afterwards. Where a party believes compliance with an order is impossible, the proper course is to approach the court under the relevant procedural rules (such as Rule 29(1)(b)) to seek correction, rescission or variation of the order, rather than simply failing to comply with it.

The court emphasized the commonsensical rationale for obeying extant court orders, noting that orders enjoy a presumption of validity. The court clarified that declining jurisdiction on the basis of dirty hands does not amount to barring a party from approaching the court permanently - rather, the party must first submit to the law and cleanse their hands by complying with the order before the court will exercise jurisdiction. The court noted that there was no obvious basis for non-compliance with the court order in this case, suggesting that genuine impossibility might be treated differently if properly demonstrated through the appropriate procedural mechanisms.

This case reinforces the important principle in Zimbabwean (and South African) law that parties must approach courts with "clean hands" and that non-compliance with extant court orders will result in a court declining jurisdiction until the contempt is purged. It emphasizes the sanctity of court orders and the principle that parties must obey court orders first and complain later. The case also clarifies the proper procedure for parties who believe compliance with an order is impossible - they must approach the court for correction or variation rather than simply ignoring the order. This judgment strengthens judicial authority and the rule of law by demonstrating that courts will not entertain applications from parties who are in contempt of existing court orders.