Rhodwick Rodrick Chigumete v The Chairman, Council of Land Surveyors and The Council of Land Surveyors

The applicant was a registered Land Surveyor. In October 2011, the second respondent (Council of Land Surveyors, a regulatory body established under the Land Surveyors Act) received a complaint from Land Surveyor O. Chikuhuhu alleging unprofessional conduct by the applicant regarding the survey of Nyatsime Township stands in Chitungwiza. On 17 November 2011, the respondents wrote to the applicant advising they were gathering facts and inviting him to provide information. The applicant's lawyers objected to the procedure, claiming it violated s 31 of the Land Surveyors (General) Rules 1990, and demanded the respondents stop inquiries and apologize. On 9 December 2011, believing the matter was on the Council's meeting agenda, the applicant filed an urgent application seeking to interdict the respondents from investigating the complaint and requiring them to issue a written apology. The respondents challenged the urgency, and the court found the matter not urgent on 19 December 2011. Seven months later, the applicant filed answering affidavits and proceeded to set the matter down on the opposed roll without properly converting the urgent application into an ordinary court application.

• Whether an urgent chamber application removed from the urgent roll automatically converts to an ordinary court application or whether the applicant must take procedural steps to properly enrol it as an ordinary application
• Whether the applicant's failure to comply with Rule 230 requiring a court application to be in Form No. 29 warranted dismissal of the application
• Whether the applicant should be allowed to approach the High Court before exhausting domestic remedies available under the Land Surveyors (General) Rules 1990
• Whether the court should exercise its discretion under s 7 of the Administrative Justice Act to decline to entertain the application

The application was dismissed with costs.

1. When a court rules that a matter is not urgent, it removes the matter from the urgent roll but does not automatically convert it to an ordinary court application. The applicant must take procedural steps to properly enrol the matter on the ordinary roll by re-serving the application in compliance with the rules of court. 2. Failure to comply with procedural requirements (such as Rule 230 requiring Form No. 29) does not automatically warrant dismissal of an application under Rule 229C, provided prejudice to the respondent can be remedied. 3. Under s 7 of the Administrative Justice Act, the High Court has discretion to decline to entertain an application where the applicant is entitled to seek relief under another law and the court considers that such remedy should first be exhausted. 4. An applicant must exhaust domestic remedies available through statutory regulatory bodies before approaching the High Court, unless good reasons are shown for not doing so. 5. An application is premature where no decision has been made against the applicant and the regulatory body has merely invited the applicant to provide information and exercise the right to be heard.

The court observed that the Zimbabwean legal system is 'litigant driven and not court driven,' emphasizing that once a court rules a matter is not urgent without giving further directions, it is the applicant's responsibility to ensure the matter is procedurally enrolled on the ordinary court roll. The court noted its impression that 'the applicant is anticipating the process' and that 'the applicant's rights have not been breached in any way.' The court commented that the applicant had 'rushed to this court before he has even tried to have the matter dealt with by the second respondent' and that the applicant, though not conceding it, appeared to be trying to put in issue the right of the second respondent to try him. The court characterized the letter written to the applicant as 'an invitation to the applicant to exercise his right to be heard' rather than a violation of rights.

This case reinforces important principles in Zimbabwean administrative law regarding the exhaustion of domestic remedies before approaching the High Court. It clarifies that courts will exercise their discretion under s 7 of the Administrative Justice Act to decline jurisdiction where adequate alternative remedies exist through statutory regulatory bodies. The judgment also provides guidance on the procedural requirements when an urgent application is removed from the urgent roll, clarifying that while procedural defects in converting to an ordinary application are not automatically fatal under Rule 229C, applicants bear responsibility for properly enrolling matters on the ordinary roll in a litigant-driven legal system. The case demonstrates judicial deference to statutory regulatory bodies to complete their investigative and disciplinary processes before judicial intervention.