Kudzai Nduku and Kevin Guzah v Luo Tingpen and Li Yize and Gamuchirai Nigel Zuze and Jinglong Security Services (Pvt) Ltd and Ming Chang Sino Africa (Pvt) Ltd

On or about 19 February 2018, the applicants were involved in a shooting incident. On 20 March 2018, they issued summons under HC 2589/18 against five respondents, alleging that the first to third respondents mercilessly shot and assaulted them, causing serious injuries. The fourth and fifth respondents were sued as employers. On 11 April 2018, applicants filed an urgent chamber application seeking an order compelling respondents to contribute medical expenses pending determination of the damages claim under HC 2589/18. Applicants alleged they had run out of money for crucial medical treatment and faced risk of permanent disability or death. They claimed respondents did not deny liability and only quantum was in dispute. However, respondents disputed liability both in HC 2589/18 and in criminal proceedings at the Regional Magistrates Court, where the trial had commenced and first applicant had testified. The certificate of urgency was dated 10 April 2018, but the founding affidavit it purported to rely upon was only signed on 11 April 2018.

• Whether the matter was urgent and properly brought as an urgent chamber application
• Whether the certificate of urgency was fatally defective
• Whether applicants deliberately concealed material facts to mislead the court
• Whether the relief sought was competent and appropriate for determination in chambers
• Whether an interim order for medical expenses could be granted where liability was disputed and the matter was at pleadings stage

1. The matter is not urgent. 2. The matter is removed from the roll of urgent matters. 3. Applicants are ordered to pay costs of suit.

An urgent chamber application will be dismissed where: (1) the certificate of urgency is fatally defective, being dated before the founding affidavit it purports to rely upon; (2) applicants deliberately conceal material facts to mislead the court, particularly regarding whether liability is disputed; (3) the relief sought is final in nature and would circumvent the normal court process where liability is contested and evidence must be led; (4) there is no proper factual basis for urgency supported by medical or expert evidence; and (5) the application amounts to an improper attempt to 'jump the queue' and obtain final relief without due process. Urgency must be established as a matter of fact, not opinion, and must demonstrate that the matter cannot wait. The element of harm should not be confused with urgency.

The court noted that it erred on the side of caution in setting the matter down given allegations of possible death and need to protect life, consistent with the principle in Document Support Centre (Pvt) Ltd v Mupurore that actions to protect life and liberty demand urgent attention. However, the court observed that chambers had to be moved to accommodate the first applicant's alleged incapacity, yet no explanation was given for the second applicant's absence despite his alleged unavailability for criminal proceedings. The court also observed that when pressed about the relief sought being final in nature, counsel for applicants claimed the figure of $771,895.00 was a typographical error and asked the judge to amend the draft order 'in the exercise of his discretion' - an improper attempt to shift responsibility for crafting competent relief to the court.

This case provides important guidance on requirements for urgent chamber applications in Zimbabwean law. It reinforces that urgency must be properly established with factual evidence, not mere opinion or sympathy. It emphasizes that certificates of urgency must be technically correct and that deliberate concealment of material facts will result in dismissal. The case also clarifies that courts will not grant final relief in chambers where it would circumvent the proper court process and deny parties the opportunity to lead evidence, particularly where liability is disputed. It demonstrates the court's vigilance against abuse of urgent chamber applications as a means to bypass normal litigation procedures.