The 51 applicants imported motor vehicles from outside Zimbabwe using import licences/permits issued by the Ministry of Industry and Commerce (the third respondent's ministry). The applicants paid import duty and the vehicles were delivered through Beitbridge Border Post to bonded warehouses. When applicants attempted to collect their vehicles, they were denied because the import licences were under investigation. An audit in June 2021 revealed that 8 licence books had been stolen from the ministry and some import licences had been fraudulently issued. The third respondent engaged ZACC (second respondent) to investigate. The first respondent (ZIMRA) detained the vehicles pending verification of import licences. The applicants filed an urgent chamber application on 5 August 2021 seeking a mandatory interdict for release of the vehicles and a declaratur that they were the rightful owners. The vehicles had been detained from dates ranging from 26 June 2021 to 5 July 2021. The import licences related to second-hand motor vehicles at least 10 years old, which had been regulated by Statutory Instrument 189 of 2021 gazetted on 2 April 2021.
The matter was removed from the roll of urgent matters. The applicants were ordered to pay the respondents' costs.
The binding legal principles established are: (1) In urgent chamber applications involving multiple applicants, each applicant must individually demonstrate urgency by providing specific dates when they became aware of the facts giving rise to the complaint, what action they took, and explaining any delay - collective averments are insufficient. (2) A final interdict cannot be sought on an urgent basis, and interim relief that is final in substance will render an application not urgent. (3) Courts will not grant urgent relief to enforce an illegality - where goods are imported in violation of peremptory statutory provisions (such as s 48 of the Customs and Excise Act), the importation is void and unenforceable regardless of the applicant's knowledge or role in the illegality. (4) Ongoing criminal investigations into the subject matter of an application negate urgency - the investigations must be completed before legal remedies can be pursued. (5) Urgency requires both meeting the time test (prompt action) and demonstrating irreparable harm - sympathy alone does not create urgency where there are insufficient legal grounds to litigate.
The court made non-binding observations that: (1) The applicants' legal practitioners had not carefully thought through their client's case and the possible legal remedies available before bringing the application in its current form. (2) Non-legal remedies might have worked perfectly well for the applicants before running to court - they could have cooperated with ZACC to expedite investigations. (3) If applicants had waited for a response to their demand letter of 2 August 2021, they could have weighed their options and considered the best course of action. (4) The fact that applicants might not have played any role in the issuance of fake import licences does not matter - the importations remain an illegality that needs to be regularized. (5) The investigations would determine whether applicants purchased vehicles before or after 2 April 2021 (the date SI 189/2021 was gazetted), which would affect whether they could regularize their import licences. The court expressed that the applicants' situation may invoke sympathy but this was insufficient to justify urgent relief.
This case is significant in South African and Zimbabwean jurisprudence for establishing strict requirements for urgent applications, particularly in multi-applicant cases. It reinforces that: (1) Each applicant in a collective urgent application must individually demonstrate urgency, even where circumstances are similar. (2) Courts will not grant urgent relief to enforce illegalities - investigations into potential criminal conduct must be completed first. (3) Final interdicts cannot be disguised as interim relief and sought on an urgent basis. (4) Applicants must exhaust non-legal remedies and allow reasonable time for responses before approaching the court. (5) The peremptory nature of customs legislation means non-compliance renders importations void and unenforceable. The judgment emphasizes that urgency is determined by both time and consequences, and sympathy for an applicant's situation does not create urgency where there are insufficient legal grounds to litigate.