Slashwood Mining (Pvt) Ltd and Zenitgroup Limited v Ontage Resources (Pvt) Ltd

On 5 December 2012, the High Court granted an order in Case Number HC 13123/12 pursuant to an application by Ontage Resources (Pvt) Ltd (the current respondent) against Slashwood Mining (Pvt) Ltd and Zenitgroup Limited (the current applicants). The order incorporated the terms of a deed of settlement signed by the parties on 19 November 2012. The applicants later sought to revive this order on the basis that it had superannuated. The respondent opposed the application on several grounds: that the provisions relating to superannuation had been repealed; that the order had been overtaken by events and superseded by another deed of settlement executed on 20 December 2012 under Case Number HC 14382/12; and that the deponent's directorship was being challenged as fraudulent. The respondent also raised preliminary objections regarding the second applicant's lack of authorization and non-joinder of Tapiwa Gurupira.

• Whether the repeal of Rule 448 of the High Court Rules, 1971 meant that superannuation of judgments no longer applies
• Whether the rule relating to superannuation applies to judgments that are not enforceable by writ of execution
• Whether the second applicant was properly before the court
• Whether Tapiwa Gurupira should have been joined to the proceedings
• Whether the pending challenge to the deponent's directorship defeated the application

1. The application is dismissed. 2. First applicant shall pay the costs of suit.

The rule relating to superannuation of judgments does not apply to all judgments universally, but only to those judgments that are enforceable by writ of execution. A judgment that does not sound in money and is not enforceable by writ of execution does not fall within the ambit of the superannuation rule contained in Rule 69(3) of the High Court Rules, 2021 (previously Rule 324 of the 1971 Rules). Therefore, such judgments do not require revival through a court application on the basis of superannuation. The repeal of Rule 448 of the High Court Rules, 1971 did not eliminate the concept of superannuation; rather, it meant that the common law relating to superannuation of judgments now applies.

The court noted that it did not accept the respondent's argument that the deed of settlement incorporated in the order of HC 13123/12 had been overtaken by events, observing that the subsequent deed of settlement in HC 14382/12 did not purport to vary the earlier order. The court also observed that the pending challenge to the directorship of the deponent to the applicant's founding affidavit did not defeat the application as he remained the director at the time of the proceedings.

This case provides important guidance on the scope and application of the rule relating to superannuation of judgments in Zimbabwean law. It clarifies that following the repeal of specific High Court Rules, the common law on superannuation continues to apply. More significantly, it establishes that the superannuation rule does not apply to all judgments universally, but is limited to judgments that are enforceable by writ of execution (typically money judgments). This has practical implications for litigants seeking to revive older court orders, particularly those containing declaratory relief or specific performance orders that are not enforceable through writs of execution.