Tendai Chidodo v St Michaels High School

The applicant was granted an arbitral award against the respondent for payment of damages in lieu of reinstatement following resolution of a labour dispute on 15 October 2014. The applicant filed an application (HC 10331/14) to register the arbitral award as a court order for enforcement purposes. A judge raised a query on 25 January 2017 regarding the absence of the arbitrator's certificate authenticating the award. The applicant's legal practitioners filed a supplementary affidavit with the certificate on 10 February 2017, advising the Registrar that the query had been answered. However, on 8 June 2017, the Registrar wrote to the applicant's legal practitioners placing them on terms to address the judge's query within 30 days, apparently unaware it had already been answered. On 15 June 2017, the legal practitioners responded advising that the query had been addressed. On 2 August 2017, the Registrar dismissed the application pursuant to Practice Direction 2/16 for failure to address the query within 30 days. The applicant then filed this application on 18 August 2017 for condonation and reinstatement of the dismissed application. The respondent opposed on grounds that the arbitral award had been compromised and fully satisfied through an agreed payment plan. The judge raised a query on 18 September 2017 directing the applicant to respond to the opposing affidavit by 22 September 2017, but the applicant's legal practitioners failed to respond despite follow-up by the Registrar.

• Whether the Registrar acted correctly in dismissing the application for registration of the arbitral award
• Whether the application for condonation and reinstatement should be granted
• Whether the applicant's failure to respond to the court's query should result in dismissal of the application
• The professional obligations of legal practitioners to respond to judicial queries

The application was dismissed with costs. A copy of the judgment was ordered to be brought to the attention of the Secretary of the Law Society so that necessary steps could be taken to remind legal practitioners to always address queries raised by judges and the court to assist in speedy resolution of matters in line with constitutional requirements under s 69(2).

Legal practitioners, as officers of the court who practice under licence issued by the court, have a professional obligation to respond to queries and correspondence from judges and the court. Failure to respond to judicial queries constitutes culpable misconduct deserving of censure and may result in adverse consequences for the client's case, including dismissal of the application. The duty to respond to judicial queries is linked to the constitutional right under s 69(2) to fair and speedy determination of civil rights and obligations, and legal practitioners must assist in achieving this objective.

The court commented on the need for improvement in the filing and processing systems in the Registrar's office, noting that the case demonstrated poor administrative coordination where "the left hand did not know what the right hand was doing." The court observed that it would be a more serious act of misconduct for a legal practitioner to fail to respond to correspondence from a judge than to fail to respond to correspondence from another legal practitioner. The court expressed hope that "like-minded legal practitioners take heed of the court's concerns and avoid engaging in dishonourable conduct of not responding to queries raised by the court or judge."

This case is significant for establishing standards of professional conduct expected of legal practitioners in Zimbabwe, particularly their duty to respond to judicial queries and communications. It highlights the constitutional imperative for speedy determination of civil matters under s 69(2) and the role legal practitioners play in achieving this. The case also demonstrates judicial oversight of administrative functions of the Registrar and the court's willingness to criticize poor administrative practices that cause delay and unnecessary costs. It serves as a warning to legal practitioners about the serious consequences of failing to engage with the court, including potential referral to the Law Society for professional misconduct.