Sergeant Mande B 047375T and Others v The Officer in Charge Harare CBD and The Commissioner General of Police

The applicants (three police officers: Sergeant Mande, Constable Nyakujara, and Constable Mbiri) filed an urgent chamber application against two respondents. On 17 May 2016, the first respondent (Trial Officer/Officer in Charge Harare CBD) advised the applicants that he wanted to detain them to serve their sentences after the Commissioner General of Police dismissed their appeal. The applicants rushed to file an application for review and simultaneously sought an urgent application to stay their detention pending determination of the review application. The application was only served on the second respondent (Commissioner General) at offices along Chinamano Avenue, but not on the first respondent who was housed at corner Inez Terez and Charter Road.

• Whether service on only one respondent when two respondents are cited constitutes proper service in terms of Order 32 Rule 242(1) of the High Court Rules 1971
• Whether the certificate of urgency met the requirements for urgency as set out in Kuvarega v Registrar General
• Whether the mere filing of a review application creates urgency for ancillary relief

The application was struck off the roll of urgent matters. Order: 1. The application is not urgent and it is struck off the roll.

1. Under Order 32 Rule 242(1) of the High Court Rules 1971, a chamber application must be served on all interested parties separately, and service on one respondent does not constitute automatic service on another respondent merely because they are members of the same organization. 2. A certificate of urgency must comply with the Kuvarega standard by explaining when events occurred, when the applicant became aware of them, and any delay in taking action. The certificate must demonstrate that the matter cannot wait, not merely that a deadline is approaching. 3. The mere filing of a review application does not create urgency for ancillary relief such as a stay of execution.

The court observed that urgency which stems from deliberate or careless abstention from action until the deadline draws near is not the type of urgency contemplated by the rules. The court also noted that it is not sufficient for a legal practitioner preparing a certificate of urgency to engage in semantics or make bare assertions of urgency without providing the factual matrix demonstrating why immediate relief is necessary. The court implicitly criticized the applicants for only taking action when faced with immediate detention rather than acting promptly upon dismissal of their appeal.

This case reinforces the strict application of procedural requirements in urgent applications in Zimbabwe. It clarifies that: (1) when multiple respondents are cited, each must be properly served even if they are part of the same organization or government department; (2) certificates of urgency must contain detailed explanations of timing and any delays, not merely assert urgency; and (3) the filing of substantive relief (such as a review) does not automatically render ancillary applications urgent. The case demonstrates the courts' intolerance for procedural shortcuts and self-created urgency arising from delay in taking action.