The Lake Users Association filed an urgent application on 30 November 2015. The application related to a boom gate that had been erected by the respondents. At a meeting held on 17 October 2015, the applicant's members had resolved to commence court action by 19 October 2015, but no action was taken until 30 November 2015. The applicant relied on an incident where a person manning the boom gate allegedly cocked a gun and pointed it at Mr K Pilz. This incident was detailed in an affidavit deposed to on 29 October 2015, but a whole month passed before the urgent application was filed. Initial service was defective as it was only effected on the first respondent's legal practitioners rather than on all respondents directly.
The court ruled that the matter was not urgent and could not be dealt with on an urgent basis. The urgent application was dismissed on the preliminary point.
An applicant seeking urgent relief must act at the time when the need to act arises. Unexplained delays between the occurrence of events giving rise to the application and the filing of the application will defeat a claim of urgency. The fact that an urgent situation may have existed initially does not excuse subsequent delay in approaching the court. Applicants cannot use urgent applications to jump the queue when they have failed to act timeously.
The court noted procedural issues regarding service, emphasizing that proper service must be effected on the respondents themselves, not merely on their legal practitioners, unless there is something on record establishing that the legal practitioners are representing the respondent in that matter. The court also observed that the applicant's counsel's attempt to explain delay based on late briefing was insufficient where the applicant's own papers contained no explanation for the delays.
This case reinforces the strict approach Zimbabwean courts take to urgent applications, emphasizing that applicants must act promptly when the need to act arises. It serves as a reminder that parties cannot delay taking action and then seek to bypass normal court procedures by claiming urgency. The judgment applies the principles established in Kuvarega v Registrar General regarding when urgency is properly established.