Shingirai Vambe v O Matare N.O and Rusape Town Council

The applicant had sued the first respondent in the Magistrates Court under Case Number 152/18 for payment of general damages of US$5000. After pleadings were filed, the applicant applied for default judgment. The magistrate granted the applicant damages in the sum of ZWL 5000 instead of US$5000 as claimed. The first respondent then applied for rescission of the default judgment before the magistrate, which was granted. The applicant then brought an application for review in the High Court seeking to review the ruling from the Rusape Magistrate Court that granted RTGS 5000 against a claim of US$50000 dated 26 May 2020, despite the fact that the default judgment had already been rescinded and no longer existed.

• Whether the applicant had properly complied with the requirements of section 27 of the High Court Act in bringing the review application
• Whether a review application could be maintained when the judgment sought to be reviewed had already been rescinded
• Whether the applicant had alleged any procedural irregularity on the part of the magistrate's conduct of proceedings to warrant review

1. The application is struck off. 2. Applicant to pay first respondent's costs on party to party basis.

A review application under section 27 of the High Court Act must be based on clear allegations of procedural irregularities in the conduct of the proceedings by the lower court. Furthermore, a review application cannot be maintained where the judgment sought to be reviewed has been rescinded and no longer exists. An applicant who persists with such an application despite being aware that the judgment has been rescinded will be liable for costs.

The court expressed its displeasure at the applicant's deliberate decision to continue with the application despite being fully aware that the judgment had been rescinded, characterizing this as an attitude that would not be condoned by the court. The court noted this as justification for ordering costs against the applicant to reflect the court's disapproval of the waste of judicial resources.

This case illustrates the principle that review proceedings must be properly grounded in procedural irregularities and that applicants cannot persist with review applications when the judgment sought to be reviewed no longer exists. It also demonstrates the courts' willingness to impose costs orders to discourage abuse of court processes through the pursuit of futile or meritless applications.