Samson Tafadzwa Gambiza v Eustina Nyathi and Others

The applicant's Toyota Dyna motor vehicle (registration number ACD 0229) was impounded by the Vehicle Inspection Department (VID) Kwekwe in August 2015 for defects. The vehicle was found to have fineable defects and was being used continuously under a notice prohibiting its use (R.T.16), attracting ZRP fines and statutory fees. The applicant, a former police officer, refused to pay the statutory fees, inspection fees, and police fines, and instead abandoned his vehicle at VID to pursue a High Court application. As a result, the vehicle accumulated storage fees in excess of $6,000. The applicant made allegations of unfair treatment and criminal abuse of office against the first respondent (VID Kwekwe Depot Manager, Mrs. Nyathi), which were investigated by police and found to be without substance by the Attorney General's office. The applicant sought relief from the court to have his vehicle released without paying the accrued fines and storage charges.

• Whether the court should grant relief to an applicant who approaches the court with unclean hands
• Whether the court can assist an applicant seeking to circumvent lawful fines and statutory obligations
• Whether the application was properly before the court
• The duty of legal practitioners to properly advise their clients and avoid abuse of court process

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The binding legal principle established is that courts will not grant relief to litigants who approach the court with unclean hands, particularly where the relief sought would enable the applicant to circumvent lawful statutory obligations. Litigants are not permitted to come to courts seeking assistance if they are guilty of lack of probity or honesty in respect of circumstances which cause them to seek relief. An application seeking an order that would perpetrate an illegality is not competent and will be dismissed. Citizens are expected to respect the law if they are to obtain protection from the courts.

The court made several obiter observations: (1) The Civil Division of the Attorney General's office, when filing a notice of non-opposition, should have assisted the court by addressing the legality of the application rather than merely abiding by the court's decision; (2) Legal practitioners have a legal duty to give proper counsel to their clients and to properly advise them to observe the law; (3) Legal practitioners who prosecute matters that amount to abuse of court process risk being ordered to pay costs de bonis propriis; (4) The making of spurious allegations of criminal abuse of office to force compliance with demands is improper conduct. The judge also commented critically on the applicant being a former police officer who should have known better than to refuse to comply with lawful requirements.

This case reinforces the fundamental principle in Zimbabwean law that courts will not assist litigants who approach them with unclean hands or who seek to use the judicial process to circumvent lawful obligations. It emphasizes the duty of legal practitioners to properly advise clients and avoid prosecuting applications that amount to abuse of court process. The judgment serves as a warning that legal practitioners may be ordered to pay costs de bonis propriis (from their own pocket) when they prosecute matters that constitute abuse of judicial process. The case also clarifies that citizens must respect and comply with lawful administrative decisions, including payment of statutory fines and fees, and cannot use spurious criminal allegations to avoid their legal obligations.