Mana Management Consultancy (Pvt) Ltd v Additional Sheriff Chiredzi and Others

Pickglow Trading (Pvt) Ltd (second respondent) obtained judgment against the third, fourth and fifth respondents for payment of money under case number HC 9294/12. On 14 March 2014, the Additional Sheriff Chiredzi (first respondent) attached property at 326 Baobab Road Chiredzi in execution of the judgment. The applicant's director, Jes Michael Simonsen, filed an affidavit claiming the attached property belonged to the applicant. This claim led to the first respondent issuing an interpleader summons on 12 May 2014 under case number HC 3292/14. Approximately 5 months after the attachment, on 25 August 2014, the applicant filed an urgent chamber application seeking restoration of the attached assets and removal of the bar against the claimant in the interpleader proceedings. The applicant blamed delays on its former legal practitioners, Chirimuuta & Associates, who renounced agency on 6 June 2014.

• Whether the chamber application was urgent and should be treated as such by the court
• Whether an applicant who waited 5 months after attachment of property before approaching the court could claim urgency
• Whether a litigant could avoid responsibility for delays by blaming former legal practitioners

The application was dismissed on the basis that the matter was not urgent.

For a court to treat a matter as urgent, it is not sufficient to merely show that there is danger of irreparable harm; the applicant must also have treated the matter as urgent through their own conduct. A delay of 5 months between the events complained of and the filing of an urgent application, without adequate explanation, is fatal to a claim of urgency. Litigants cannot avoid the consequences of their own dilatory conduct by blaming their legal practitioners, as they have a responsibility to track their own cases.

The court noted that there is a limit beyond which a litigant cannot escape the ineptitude of their legal practitioners. The court also observed that it would hesitate to condemn the former legal practitioners Chirimuuta & Associates without affording them an opportunity to be heard and explain their position, as they had not been given such opportunity in the proceedings.

This case reinforces the principle in Zimbabwean civil procedure that urgency is determined not only by the nature of the harm threatened, but also by the applicant's own conduct in pursuing the matter. It emphasizes that litigants cannot escape responsibility for delays by blaming their legal practitioners, and that failure to timeously pursue a matter demonstrates lack of urgency. The case serves as a reminder that urgent applications require diligent prosecution by the applicant from the outset.