The second applicant was the Managing Director of the first applicant, a dental laboratory. The first respondent (Health Professions Authority Zimbabwe) levied a penalty of US$690.00 on 8 March 2021 under Statutory Instrument 78 of 2017 for non-compliance. The applicants paid ZWL$690.00 at a 1:1 rate pursuant to SI 33 of 2019, which provided for parity between RTGS dollars and US dollars. The first respondent accepted but rejected this payment as settlement, citing SI 85/2020 which required pricing in both Zimbabwe dollars and foreign currency at the ruling exchange rate. The first respondent then closed the applicants' laboratory on 17 March 2021 and instructed police to man the premises. The applicants launched an urgent application seeking to reopen the laboratory, declaring that their payment was valid, and restraining criminal proceedings. Evidence showed that the applicants had been notified as early as June 2020 and September 2020 (via email with proforma invoice) of the requirement to pay in US dollars or equivalent at the ruling bank auction rate, and had been operating without proper licensing for approximately two years.
The application was struck off the roll of urgent matters.
Urgency in an application is self-created and not the type contemplated by the court rules where an applicant delays taking action for months after becoming aware of the dispute, only acting when faced with enforcement consequences. Material non-disclosure of facts relevant to urgency, including the history of the dispute and the applicant's non-compliance with licensing requirements, justifies striking an urgent application off the roll. Courts cannot grant interim relief that would permit continued illegal operation in violation of statutory licensing and compliance requirements, as courts must not allow illegality to perpetuate. The principle of "comply first, complain later" applies to regulatory enforcement by statutory bodies.
The court noted that while non-joinder of a party (such as the Minister) does not automatically defeat a cause under Rule 87(1), material non-joinder may have different consequences. The court also observed that had the applicants disclosed the full history showing they had notice since June/September 2020, the matter would likely not have been set down on an urgent basis. The court gave the applicants the benefit of the doubt on the non-citation point despite the challenge to the Statutory Instrument. The court also commented that before amendment, the relief sought would have required review proceedings rather than an urgent chamber application, but this point lost merit after the draft order was amended to seek suspension rather than setting aside of the decision.
This case is significant in Zimbabwean jurisprudence for reinforcing the strict requirements for urgent applications. It emphasizes that: (1) urgency is defeated when applicants delay action despite being aware of the grounds for their complaint months in advance; (2) material non-disclosures relating to the history of a dispute and facts relevant to urgency can be fatal to an application; (3) courts will not grant interim relief that would authorize continued illegal conduct, such as operating without required professional licenses; and (4) applicants must comply with regulatory requirements first and complain later. The case also provides guidance on the interpretation of currency payment provisions under various Statutory Instruments in Zimbabwe's evolving monetary regime.