Lassie Sandra Hunyenye v Tobias Tobaiwa Kambani

The plaintiff issued summons on 29 July 2020 under HC 4041/20. Her initial attorneys, T Pfigu Attorneys, renounced agency on 14 September 2020. The plaintiff thereafter proceeded as a self-actor and filed multiple amendments to the summons. The case concerned an alleged tacit universal partnership between the parties arising from what the plaintiff described as a customary law union, and the distribution of movable and immovable assets between them. The plaintiff filed numerous pleadings, many of which were inelegantly drafted, argumentative, and vexatious. The record was in a muddled state with missing pleadings including the initial declaration. The plaintiff filed an amendment on 4 March 2021 before receiving leave to amend from Honourable Tagu J on 23 March 2021. The matter had been before seven judges, three of whom the plaintiff had reported to the Constitutional Court for advising her to seek legal assistance. The defendant opposed the plaintiff's amendments and pointed out defects in the pleadings.

• Whether the plaintiff's pleadings were properly filed and complied with the High Court Rules
• Whether there was a tacit universal partnership between the parties
• Whether movable and immovable assets should be distributed between the parties and in what proportion
• What constituted the assets of the parties
• Whether the matter was in a proper state to proceed to trial

The matter was removed from the roll with the following directions: (a) The plaintiff was to engage legal services if she wished; (b) Within thirty days, the plaintiff was to prepare, issue and serve a new set of amended summons and declaration incorporating all issues to be determined and meeting the standards of the High Court Rules, 2021; (c) Thereafter the matter to proceed in terms of the Rules; (d) The plaintiff was barred with immediate effect from filing any pleadings or documents outside those specifically provided by the Rules except as directed; (e) The Registrar was directed not to accept any pleadings or documents not specifically provided for by the Rules and the ruling.

Pleadings must define the issues clearly and enable the opposing party to know what case they have to meet in accordance with the High Court Rules. Where a self-represented litigant files multiple defective amendments that are inelegantly drafted, argumentative, and vexatious, and the record is in such a confused state that the real issues cannot be determined, the court has the power to remove the matter from the roll and direct the filing of proper pleadings that comply with the Rules. A court will not refer a matter to trial where the pleadings do not properly define the issues, as this would be a disservice to the trial judge and a waste of court resources. Litigants are prohibited from filing documents not prescribed by the Rules, and the Registrar may be directed not to accept such documents.

The court observed that the plaintiff appeared to lack capacity to prosecute her matter on her own, despite her adamant insistence that she had such capacity. The court noted that all seven judges who had previously dealt with the matter had advised the plaintiff to seek legal assistance. The court commented that the matter had clogged the court system and wasted court time by doing the rounds through seven judges, emphasizing the need to bring finality to litigation. The court remarked that some of the plaintiff's filings were complaints against the conduct of anyone who had dealt with the file, and that the plaintiff had even inscribed copious notes on the flipside of pages in the court record, which the court found unacceptable.

This case highlights the importance of proper pleadings in civil litigation and the court's power to manage cases where litigants in person fail to comply with procedural rules. It demonstrates the court's discretion to remove matters from the roll where pleadings are defective and the case is not ready for trial. The case also illustrates the courts' approach to managing vexatious or repetitive filings and the need to balance access to justice for self-represented litigants with the efficient administration of justice and prevention of abuse of court processes. It reinforces that even litigants in person must comply with the High Court Rules and that courts will not allow matters to proceed to trial where the issues are not properly defined through pleadings.