Phillimon Chikaura v Mutsvairo Admire and Others

The applicant sought urgent relief concerning a land dispute. The applicant had been served with a letter dated 3 October 2011 withdrawing a piece of land from him (Annexure "B"). On 27 October 2016, the applicant was called by the third respondent (The Lands Committee) and advised that his offer letter would be withdrawn. The applicant averred that he had been evicted but failed to disclose the exact date of eviction. The urgent application was filed on 12 December 2016.

• Whether the matter constituted a genuine urgent application
• When the need to act arose for purposes of determining urgency
• Whether the applicant provided satisfactory explanation for the delay in filing the urgent application
• Whether it was competent for the court to dismiss interim relief after holding the matter was not urgent

The urgent application was held not to be urgent. The court noted that the second operative part of the original order (dismissing interim relief) should not have been granted and was wrong. The appropriate order should simply have been to hold that the matter was not urgent.

When a court determines that a matter is not urgent, it is not competent for the court to then proceed to dismiss the interim relief prayed for. The appropriate order in such circumstances is simply to hold that the matter is not urgent and nothing more. The need to act for purposes of determining urgency arises when the applicant first becomes aware of the circumstances giving rise to the application, and substantial unexplained delays will defeat urgency.

The court made self-correcting observations acknowledging its own error in the original order. It noted that "this court notes from the outset and agrees that the second operative part of the order should not have been granted" and reiterated that "once it had held the matter not to be urgent it should simply have stopped there." The court submitted that "indeed the second operative part of the judgment, that is, the dismissal of the Interim Relief Sought, was wrong and should not be upheld." These observations serve as guidance for future similar applications regarding the proper procedural approach when dealing with matters found to lack urgency.

This case clarifies the procedural limits of a court's powers when dealing with urgent applications in Zimbabwe. It establishes that once a court has determined that a matter is not urgent, it lacks jurisdiction to proceed further to determine the merits of interim relief sought. The case also reinforces principles regarding what constitutes urgency and the importance of applicants providing satisfactory explanations for delays in approaching the court on an urgent basis.