Solomon's Treasure (Pvt) Limited v Mipple Trading Company (Private) Limited and Others

The applicant (Solomon's Treasure) was involved in a dispute with the first respondent (Mipple Trading Company) relating to mining claims called Xmas 6 and 3 and 148/9. The first respondent had obtained a decision in its favour from a Bindura court (case MCCB 048/25). The applicant filed an application for review of that decision (HCH 4401/25) which was pending. The applicant brought an urgent chamber application seeking interim relief. The first respondent filed a notice of opposition and opposing affidavit, together with what it termed a counter-application for a mandamus in terms of Rule 58(8) read with Rule 59 of the High Court Rules. This counter-application was structured as a court application seeking final relief. Previous case management orders had been issued directing the filing of pleadings and setting hearing dates. The matter was placed before Chirawu-Mugomba J as a 'composite' application encompassing both the urgent chamber application and the counter court application.

• Whether an urgent chamber application can be combined with a counter court application and be heard as one composite application
• The proper interpretation and application of Rule 58(8)-(11) of the High Court Rules regarding counter applications
• Whether a respondent can file a counter urgent chamber application
• The effect of case management orders on procedural requirements

1. The composite application is split with the urgent chamber application standing on its own. 2. The court shall proceed to deal with the urgent chamber application as a standalone on a date to be allocated. 3. There will be no order as to costs.

An urgent chamber application cannot be combined with a counter court application to be heard as one composite application. Rule 58(8) of the High Court Rules permits a respondent to file a counter court application or counter chamber application after filing a notice of opposition and opposing affidavit, but this does not extend to combining an urgent chamber application with a counter court application. The remedies and procedures governing urgent chamber applications and court applications are fundamentally different: urgent chamber applications generally provide interim relief and are heard in chambers, while court applications provide final relief and are heard in open court. These applications are incompatible and cannot be mixed. A respondent cannot file a counter urgent chamber application because one party's urgent chamber application cannot trigger another party's urgency.

The court observed that if an application is deemed not to be urgent, it is transferred to the roll of ordinary court applications without the need to file a fresh court application, at which point a respondent who has filed opposition may file a counter court application. The court noted it would be absurd to grant an interim provisional order that would non-suit the first respondent from proceeding with the counter court application, or vice versa. The court also noted that it could not proffer legal solutions as to how the counter court application would proceed, but that it would only proceed to hear the urgent chamber application and the opposition to it. The court made no order as to costs because the procedural issue was raised mero motu by the court.

This judgment clarifies important procedural principles in Zimbabwean civil procedure regarding the interaction between urgent chamber applications and counter applications. It establishes clear boundaries on what types of applications can be combined under Rule 58(8)-(11) of the High Court Rules. The case is significant for practitioners as it confirms that the distinct procedural and remedial characteristics of urgent chamber applications and court applications prevent their combination into a composite hearing. It reinforces the principle that procedural rules cannot be circumvented even by case management orders where there is no explicit direction to do so. The judgment also provides guidance on counter applications generally, clarifying that while counter court applications and counter chamber applications are permissible, a counter urgent chamber application is not competent because one party's urgency cannot trigger another's.