Redan Petroleum (Pvt) Ltd t/a Puma Energy v Redan Coupon (Pvt) Ltd

The applicant and respondent entered into two licensing agreements in September 2018 and March 2019 relating to two service stations in Avondale and Westgate Mall, Harare. The agreements obliged the applicant to deliver fuels, oils and other petroleum products to the respondent at the two service stations on an exclusive basis, with the respondent restrained from receiving products from competitors. The service stations were branded with the PUMA logo. The applicant alleged that in breach of the agreements, the respondent refused to receive products from the applicant and procured products from third parties. The respondent denied the breach, claiming it still had sufficient stock and had not placed orders, and that the dispute arose from disagreements over a shareholders' agreement. The applicant brought an urgent application seeking interim relief in the form of an interdict.

• Whether the deponent to the founding affidavit had locus standi to act on behalf of the applicant
• Whether the application met the urgency requirements under the Commercial Court Rules
• Whether a certificate of urgency was required for urgent applications before the Commercial Court
• Whether the affidavit was defective due to a typed date
• Whether the interim relief sought was improperly the same as the final relief
• Whether the court could grant interim relief pending arbitration under Article 9 of the Arbitration Act
• Whether the applicant established a prima facie case for the granting of an interdict

The court granted a varied provisional order: (1) Interdicting the respondent from receiving and selling petroleum products from third parties at the two specified service stations (Westgate Mall and Avondale); (2) Directing the applicant to invoke clause 23 of the licensing agreements on settlement of disputes within seven days or any longer period agreed in writing; (3) Authorizing the applicant or their legal practitioners to serve the order on the respondent. The matter was notable as the first virtual hearing at Zimbabwe's newly established Commercial Court.

The binding legal principles established are: (1) Under the Commercial Court Rules, Rule 40(1), a separate certificate of urgency is not required for urgent chamber applications as the certificate is incorporated into Form CC11, distinguishing Commercial Court procedure from the High Court Rules; (2) Article 9 of the Arbitration Act permits the High Court to grant interim measures of protection before or during arbitral proceedings where the arbitral tribunal has not yet been appointed and the matter is urgent, or where urgency makes it impracticable to seek relief from the arbitral tribunal; (3) In determining whether to grant a provisional order, a prima facie case requires evidence from which a court properly directed could or might find for the applicant - a standard much lower than proof on a balance of probabilities; (4) A court has power under R60(9) to vary the interim relief sought to ensure it is appropriately framed and not too wide in scope; (5) When granting interim relief pending arbitration, the court should ensure the contractual dispute resolution process is invoked to protect both parties' rights.

The court made several non-binding observations: (1) That denying an applicant audience based on lack of authority of the deponent in an urgent application would be to effectively shut the door on relief; (2) That amending a faulty provisional order is permissible but should be the exception rather than the norm; (3) That it is expected interim relief should not be the same as final relief because granting such defeats the purpose of the discharge or confirmation process; (4) The court noted with approval the description of prima facie case from Balasore Alloys Ltd that it is a case that does not merit absolution from the instance; (5) The court observed that the Commercial Court Rules' omission of a certificate of urgency requirement is meant to reinforce the general thrust of the Commercial Court, which is the speedy resolution of disputes without being bogged down by technicalities.

This case is significant in Zimbabwean legal history as it was the first matter heard virtually at the newly established Commercial Court in Zimbabwe. It clarifies important procedural issues specific to the Commercial Court, particularly that the Commercial Court Rules do not require a separate certificate of urgency as this is incorporated into Form CC11, reflecting the court's emphasis on efficiency and avoiding technicalities. The judgment also provides guidance on the interaction between urgent interim relief and arbitration agreements, applying Article 9 of the Arbitration Act which permits the High Court to grant interim measures before or during arbitral proceedings. It demonstrates the court's willingness to exercise flexibility in granting and varying provisional orders while ensuring both parties' rights are protected through directing invocation of contractual dispute resolution mechanisms.