On 20 August 2024, the applicant filed an application for review of the first respondent's decision to withdraw a notice of intention to cancel the third respondent's certificate of registration of its milling site (registration number ME18) and to cancel certificates of registration of Kaukonde Tanyaradzwa Brian's Block (registration number 44957) and the fourth respondent's block (registration number ME 348 G of Reef Scrai A). The applicant also challenged the second respondent's intention to cancel the certificate of registration named Ayerum (registration number ME 44957) belonging to the applicant. The matter was first heard on 7 February 2025, when a preliminary point raised by the third respondent was dismissed. The matter was set down for hearing by consent on 28 March 2025. At the commencement of the hearing, the third respondent applied for removal of the matter from the roll, citing an application for consolidation filed on 12 March 2025 under HCH 1131/25. The third respondent sought to consolidate HCH 3611/24, HCH 4081/24, and HCH 794/25, arguing they involved the same parties and similar issues. Previously, on 29 January 2025, the third respondent had withdrawn a similar request for consolidation after the court directed parties to engage on the issue.
1. The application is hereby removed from the roll pending the hearing and determination of the application for consolidation under HCH 1131/25. 2. The third respondent shall bear the applicant's wasted costs on an ordinary scale.
Related matters involving the same parties and the same issues should be consolidated and heard together for the convenience of the court and parties, to serve the efficient administration of justice, and to achieve finality in litigation. However, requests for consolidation should not be used as weapons to stifle the hearing of matters that are ripe for argument. Where a party has previously withdrawn a request for consolidation and then reapplies for removal from the roll after the matter has been partly heard, such conduct may constitute litigating in bad faith, warranting an adverse costs order, even if the substantive basis for consolidation is established.
The court observed that allowing the registrar to set a matter down for hearing and then appearing at the hearing to argue for removal without prior reference to the need for consolidation leaves the impression that the application is an afterthought intended to delay proceedings. The court also noted that court business must be taken seriously, implying that procedural applications should be brought timeously and in good faith rather than as tactical maneuvers. The court commented that the matter had become "partly heard" which ought to have been disposed of with minimum inconvenience to the parties, expressing disapproval of the creation of such situations through procedural delays.
This case is significant in Zimbabwean civil procedure law as it illustrates the court's approach to consolidation of related matters and the balancing of competing interests between judicial efficiency and preventing abuse of process. It demonstrates that while courts favor consolidation of related matters to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and conflicting judgments, they will scrutinize applications for removal from the roll where parties appear to be using procedural mechanisms to delay proceedings, particularly where a party has previously abandoned such a request. The case reinforces the principle that litigants must conduct themselves in good faith and that turning about on previously abandoned positions may attract adverse costs orders. It also clarifies that even where the court grants removal from the roll on substantive grounds (i.e., the need for consolidation), it will not hesitate to punish procedural gamesmanship with costs orders.