Tendai Bonde v National Foods Ltd and Registrar Supreme Court of Bulawayo

The applicant filed a chamber application styled as "Chamber Application for Reinstatement of an Application in terms of Rule 70 (2) of the Supreme Court Rules, 2018." The applicant sought to reinstate an application in case number SCB 96/20, which had been heard by Mathonsi JA on 4 November 2020 and dismissed on 18 November 2020 (judgment SC 159/20). The original application in SCB 96/20 was for condonation and extension of time to note review. Mathonsi JA had found that application to be convoluted and fundamentally flawed, stating it was improperly before him, and struck it off the roll with costs. The applicant now sought reinstatement of that struck-off application. The applicant also raised issues about the first respondent executing a costs order and attaching his property, and challenged the judge's refusal to recuse himself in the earlier application.

• Whether Rule 70(2) of the Supreme Court Rules, 2018 applies to the reinstatement of applications or only to appeals
• Whether a judge of the Supreme Court can review or revisit the judgment of another judge of the same court
• Whether an application struck off the roll can be reinstated
• Whether the relief sought would conflict with an existing judgment of the court

The application was dismissed with costs.

Rule 70(2) of the Supreme Court Rules, 2018 applies only to the reinstatement of appeals and not to applications. A judge of the Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction to review or revisit the judgment of another judge of the same court. An application that seeks relief contrary to an existing judgment of the court, with the effect of having one judge review another judge's decision, is incompetent and must be dismissed. The principle from MacFoy v United Africa Co. Ltd applies: you cannot rectify or correct a nullity - if an act is void, it is void for all purposes.

The court noted that the applicant, despite presenting himself as well-read and conversant with the court rules, demonstrated a lack of understanding of legal concepts and issues. The court observed that the energy expended by the applicant in pursuing the application was "ill spent." While the first respondent sought costs on the legal practitioner-client scale, the court found that the higher scale was not called for in the circumstances, suggesting that mere incompetence or misunderstanding of legal principles, without evidence of bad faith or abuse of process, does not warrant punitive costs. The court also commented on the importance of citing the relevant provision of law under which an application is made, as this attunes the court to its jurisdiction.

This case reinforces fundamental principles of court procedure and judicial hierarchy in Zimbabwean law (though heard in Zimbabwe, the principles are similar to South African jurisprudence): (1) The importance of citing the correct legal provision when bringing applications before the court - citing an inapplicable rule undermines the court's jurisdiction; (2) A judge of a court cannot review or revisit the judgment of another judge of the same court - such dissatisfaction must be addressed through proper appellate mechanisms; (3) Rules providing for reinstatement of appeals do not extend to reinstatement of applications; (4) The principle that a nullity cannot be rectified - if an act is void, it is void for all purposes; (5) Self-represented litigants must still comply with proper legal procedures and cannot circumvent adverse judgments by filing fresh applications before different judges seeking to overturn earlier decisions.