An urgent chamber application was placed before Chitapi J on 24 December 2019. After reading the papers, the judge issued an order striking the matter off the roll of urgent applications on the basis that it was not urgent and no compelling circumstances were alleged to merit jumping the queue. On 8 January 2020, the applicant's legal practitioners received the typed order issued by the Registrar, which was prefaced with the words "WHEREUPON after reading documents filed of record and hearing counsel". The applicant's legal practitioners noted this reference to "hearing counsel" and wrote to the Registrar on 10 January 2020, claiming the order suggested parties had appeared before the court and made submissions, but they had not been notified to attend a hearing. They requested audience before the judge to make submissions. Upon review, the judge confirmed that the Registrar had made a typing error by including the words "and hearing counsel" when in fact no counsel had appeared before the judge - the matter had been decided on the papers alone.
1. The request for audience of the judge to make representations on the inaccuracy of the order issued by the Registrar was refused. 2. The Registrar was ordered to issue an amended order correctly reflecting the order made by the judge, specifically by deleting the words "and hearing counsel" after the words "WHEREUPON after reading documents filed of record," with the rest to remain.
Where a Registrar makes a clerical or typing error in a court order that does not accurately reflect the judge's actual order, the proper procedure for correction is for counsel to first verify the error by examining the court record, then raise the matter with the Registrar who should bring the record to the judge and seek directions on correction. Counsel is not entitled to audience with the judge solely on the basis of such a clerical error, and cannot use such an error as a vehicle to make submissions on the merits of the matter. The first point of call when counsel identifies an anomaly in an order should be to peruse the record and clarify with the Registrar, not to seek audience of the judge.
The judge made several non-binding observations: (1) The Registrar's error arose from a perfunctory approach to issuing court orders, likely from using templates or copy-and-paste exercises without thorough revision; (2) It is standard practice that where parties have appeared by counsel, the names of counsel are shown on the order; (3) It is impractical and inconvenient to require judges to proof-read every typed order before they are issued by the Registrar; (4) To minimize the issuing of inaccurate orders, the Registrar must meticulously read through orders before signing and issuing them; (5) There is a weakness in the system whereby the Registrar signs off typed judge's orders without reference to the judge, which means the judge may be attributed with wrong orders; (6) Situations may arise where an error in an order may result in irreparable harm or prejudice to parties and the public at large, hence the need for careful review.
This case provides important guidance on court practice and procedure in Zimbabwe regarding: (1) the proper procedure for correcting clerical errors made by the Registrar in typing court orders; (2) the duties of legal practitioners when they identify anomalies in court orders, specifically that they should first verify the accuracy of the order by examining the court record and consulting with the Registrar rather than immediately seeking audience with the judge; and (3) the systemic risks inherent in the practice of the Registrar signing and issuing typed orders without reference back to the judge, and the need for meticulous review by the Registrar to avoid issuing inaccurate orders that could cause irreparable harm or prejudice.