The applicant, an Irish national visiting Zimbabwe as a tourist, had wooden carvings seized by the Forestry Commission on 31 August 2006. The items were intended for export to Ireland through a freight forwarding company called Trax International. No documents were issued at the time of seizure. After unsuccessful negotiations between the applicant and the Forestry Commission, the Provincial Magistrate issued an order on 3 October 2006 granting the Forestry Commission the right to retain the seized items in terms of section 86(3) of the Forest Act [Chapter 19:05] in conjunction with the Communal Lands Forestry Act. The applicant then approached the High Court on an urgent chamber application seeking a declaration that the seizure was unlawful and an order for the release of the wooden carvings.
The application was dismissed with costs. The court found the matter was not properly before it as it was not urgent and the applicant was required to pay security for costs before the matter could proceed.
1. A foreign national or person not ordinarily resident within the jurisdiction may be required to provide security for costs unless they can prove possession of sufficient immovable property to pay costs, and the court will only dispense with this requirement in exceptional circumstances. 2. For a matter to qualify as urgent, an applicant must establish that irreparable harm will ensue if the matter is not heard urgently and that the relief cannot wait - mere inconvenience to the applicant does not constitute urgency. 3. A matter is urgent if, at the time to act, it cannot wait, not simply because the imminent arrival of some deadline makes it convenient for the applicant to be heard outside normal times.
The court reserved determination on two issues: (1) whether the Minister of Environment and Tourism and the Attorney-General were properly cited as parties to the proceedings, noting reluctance to decide this without full argument; and (2) whether the application was in substance a review that had not complied with Order 33 of the court rules, finding that determining this would involve deciding the merits of the application which was unnecessary given the findings on urgency and security for costs.
This case clarifies the requirements for urgent chamber applications in Zimbabwean courts and reinforces the principle that foreign nationals not ordinarily resident in the jurisdiction must provide security for costs. It establishes that mere inconvenience to a litigant does not constitute urgency warranting preferential treatment, and that urgency must be demonstrated by showing that irreparable harm will result from delay or that the relief sought will become unavailable if not granted immediately.