Jonathan Kaneshonga v Minister of Local Government, Public Works and National Housing, N.O. and Others

The applicant challenged the selection process for the appointment of Chief Nemangwe. A meeting from which the disputed selection arose was held in January 2014. On 17 September 2014, the applicant filed an urgent chamber application seeking to interdict the 1st to 3rd respondents from forwarding the 4th respondent's name to the President for appointment as Chief Nemangwe. The applicant sought an order that a new selection process be conducted in terms of the Traditional Leaders Act [Cap 29:17]. The court initially endorsed that the matter was not urgent, and the applicant's legal practitioners then requested an opportunity to argue the urgency before the court, which was set down for hearing on 30 September 2014.

• Whether the application was urgent and entitled to bypass normal court rules and time frames
• Whether the applicant demonstrated that the matter could not wait for the observance of ordinary court rules
• Whether the applicant had shown that no other remedies were available
• Whether the applicant adequately explained the delay from January 2014 to September 2014 in bringing the application

The court refused to hear the matter on an urgent basis. The applicant was ordered to pay costs of the hearing.

For a matter to be treated as urgent, the applicant must show: (1) that the matter cannot wait for the observance of ordinary court rules; (2) that there is no adequate explanation for delay undermines a claim of urgency; (3) that no other remedies are available; and (4) that the certificate of urgency must address time frames and dates justifying urgency, not merely recite the merits of the case. A delay of nine months without explanation from the time of learning of the disputed matter to filing an urgent application negates urgency.

The court observed that in succession cases involving traditional leadership, the proper procedure is for the aggrieved party to initiate the legal process by filing summons commencing an ordinary action rather than an urgent application. The court noted that had the applicant filed summons in January 2014, the matter would have been at an advanced stage by September 2014. The court commented that the certificate of urgency was "mainly pregnant with the merits of the case which are the province of hearing of the main matter."

This case reinforces the requirements for urgent applications in Zimbabwean law, particularly in traditional leadership succession disputes. It emphasizes that applicants must properly justify urgency by showing that the matter cannot wait for ordinary court processes, must explain any delays in bringing the application, and must demonstrate that no alternative remedies are available. The case illustrates that traditional leadership disputes should ordinarily be commenced by way of summons in an ordinary action rather than urgent applications, unless true urgency can be demonstrated.