Kukura Kurerwa Bus Company (Pvt) Ltd v Japhet Lunga & 55 Others

The applicant filed an urgent chamber application on 31 October 2014. On 5 September 2014, an arbitral award in favour of the first respondent was registered with the High Court for execution. On 24 October 2014, a Notice of Removal was served on the applicant by the additional sheriff (second respondent), attaching and placing under seizure certain property at the applicant's premises at 29 Willowvale Road, Harare. The applicant only filed an application for suspension of the arbitral award with the Labour Court on 30 October 2014, followed by the urgent chamber application on 31 October 2014. The court placed the application before Mangota J on 5 November 2014, who was of the view that the matter was not urgent. Due to a communication breakdown, a letter from the applicant's legal practitioners dated 6 November 2014 requesting counsel be heard on urgency never reached the judge. The applicant appealed the dismissal, and the court was subsequently requested to provide reasons for its decision.

• Whether the application was genuinely urgent
• Whether the applicant treated the matter with the urgency it allegedly deserved
• Whether the certificate of urgency contained sufficient particulars
• Whether the applicant's delay from September to October 2014 defeated the urgency
• Whether attachment of property alone renders a matter urgent

The urgent chamber application was dismissed on the grounds that it was not urgent.

For an application to be treated as urgent: (1) there must be danger of irreparable prejudice if the matter is not dealt with immediately, AND (2) the applicant must have treated the matter as one of urgency through their conduct. A matter cannot be deemed urgent simply because property has been attached. Self-created urgency, arising from an applicant's own delay in responding to known threats, will not satisfy the requirements for urgent relief. Certificates of urgency must contain sufficient particulars to enable the court to make an informed decision, including specific dates of key events. Applicants owe a duty to the court to lay before it all material matters and not suppress information relevant to the determination of urgency.

The court made observations about the systemic failure that occurred when the applicant's letter of 6 November 2014 requesting to be heard on urgency never reached the judge due to administrative issues with court staff. Mangota J noted: "The system failed the applicant in the mentioned regard." The court also commented on the proper application of Rule 326A regarding the sheriff's duty to give 48 hours' notice before removal of attached property, noting the only exceptions are where there are reasonable grounds to believe immediate removal is necessary to prevent concealment or disposal, or where the departure occurs through inadvertence. The judge emphasized that "when parties bring cases to court, they should lay before the court all the matters upon which they rely" and that parties are "discouraged from suppressing information which, in the court's view, is material to a proper determination of the case."

This case reinforces important principles regarding urgent applications in Zimbabwean civil procedure. It emphasizes that applicants must not only demonstrate objective urgency but must also have treated the matter with subjective urgency through their conduct. The judgment clarifies that mere attachment of property does not automatically render a matter urgent, and that delay in responding to known threats will defeat claims of urgency. The case also highlights the duty of candour owed to the court in certificates of urgency and founding affidavits, requiring full disclosure of material facts including timelines and procedural steps taken.