Melford Ndlovu v Martin Chikwana N.O. and Others

The late Key Ndlovu died intestate leaving House No. 3501, Magwegwe North, Bulawayo, among other properties. Four beneficiaries including the applicant had an interest in the estate. Initially, the applicant was given an opportunity to buy out other beneficiaries' interests in the house for US$4,000.00, against the wishes of other beneficiaries who preferred the house be sold and proceeds shared equally. On 15 June 2016, the applicant indicated his inability to buy the house on the original terms and offered new terms. On 2 August 2016, the first respondent (executor) advised the applicant that the new terms were unacceptable. On 23 August 2016, the first respondent was granted authority by the Deputy Master to dispose of the house by private treaty. On 19 September 2016, the applicant filed an urgent chamber application seeking to interdict the sale of the house pending finalization of the estate account.

• Whether the matter was sufficiently urgent to be heard as an urgent chamber application
• Whether the applicant adequately established and explained the urgency in his founding affidavit
• Whether the applicant's reasons for delay in filing the application were adequately explained

The court declined to hear the matter on urgency. No order as to costs was made as none were sought.

Whenever a matter is brought on urgency, the issue of urgency must be properly and adequately explained in the founding affidavit as well as the certificate of urgency. Any failure to do so will obstruct the hearing of the matter on urgency. A party seeking urgent relief must establish not only the urgency of the matter but also provide adequate explanation for any delay in bringing the application.

The court noted that the remedy for expenses incurred by the applicant in anticipation of the failed sale lay not in bringing an urgent application but in putting his case against the estate like any other creditor. The court also observed that the applicant appeared to be acting in a selfish manner without regard to the interests of other beneficiaries, as demonstrated by the fact that none of them supported his urgent application.

This case reinforces the procedural requirements for urgent applications in Zimbabwean courts. It emphasizes that parties seeking urgent relief must adequately explain both the urgency itself and any delay in bringing the application in their founding papers. The case also demonstrates that self-interest of one beneficiary among several in an estate matter, without support from other beneficiaries, does not constitute sufficient grounds for urgent relief. It serves as a reminder that urgent applications must meet strict procedural requirements and cannot be used as a mechanism to circumvent ordinary processes where urgency is not properly established.