Maoni Trading (Pvt) Ltd v Trianic Investments (Pvt) Ltd and Others

The parties had previously appeared before Makonese J on 1 December 2016 under case number HB-340-16, where the current applicant (Maoni Trading) appeared as 2nd and 3rd respondents in that matter. Makonese J dismissed that application and awarded costs on an attorney-client scale against the applicants in that case. Subsequently, on 26 December 2016, Maoni Trading (now as applicant) approached Bere J seeking a provisional order. The respondents, despite being duly served with notice of hearing, were in default of attendance. Mr P. Muzvuzvu briefly appeared for the 2nd and 3rd respondents but indicated he had not been briefed and sought to be excused. Mr L. Dube appeared for the 4th respondent and did not oppose the provisional order, pledging to abide by the court's order.

• Whether the court should grant interim relief to facilitate enforcement of a previous court order that had not been appealed
• Whether the balance of convenience favored granting the provisional order
• Whether the requested order fundamentally altered the previous order of Makonese J

The provisional order sought by the applicant was granted on 21 December 2016, with written reasons provided on 13 July 2017.

A court may grant interim relief of an administrative nature to facilitate the enforcement of an earlier court order that has not been appealed, provided that: (1) the requested order does not fundamentally alter the earlier order; (2) the balance of convenience favors granting the relief; and (3) the applicant would otherwise be unable to enjoy the benefits intended by the earlier court decision.

The court noted with approval that Mr L. Dube, appearing for the 4th respondent, took a responsible position by not opposing the provisional order and pledging that his client would abide by the court's order. This conduct was implicitly commended as appropriate professional behavior in circumstances where opposition would be futile given the existence of an unappealed prior order.

This case demonstrates the Zimbabwean High Court's willingness to grant administrative and facilitative orders to enable parties to enforce existing court orders that have not been appealed. It illustrates the principle that interim relief of an administrative nature may be granted where necessary to give effect to earlier court decisions, particularly where the balance of convenience favors such relief and the order does not fundamentally alter previous judicial determinations.