Tendai Chigudu v Commissioner of Customs and Excise and Others

The applicant purchased a Landrover Discovery motor vehicle (registration OV18DWF, chassis number SALRA2ANOJA065929) outside Zimbabwe and brought it into the country. He did not pay the requisite fees for the importation of the vehicle. The Zimbabwe Revenue Authority (third respondent) seized the vehicle and demanded payment of duties and penalties. The first respondent (Commissioner of Customs and Excise) issued a decision on 2 May 2025 regarding the seizure, which was later supplanted by a decision dated 20 May 2025 upholding the seizure. The applicant was against paying the fees demanded and approached the court on an urgent basis seeking an order to set aside the decision, have the vehicle released, and declare the duties and penalties unlawful.

• Whether the matter was properly enrolled as urgent and met the requirements for urgent treatment under the Rules of Court
• Whether the applicant had demonstrated circumstances warranting deviation from normal court procedures
• Whether the applicant had shown that he would suffer irreparable harm if the matter was not heard urgently

1. The matter is not urgent. 2. The applicant pays the costs of this application.

An applicant seeking urgent relief must explicitly set forth in the founding affidavit the circumstances that render the matter urgent and demonstrate why substantial redress cannot be afforded at a hearing in due course. Urgency is determined objectively based on two paramount considerations: (1) time - the need to act promptly where harm is apprehended, and (2) consequences - the effect of failure to act promptly or the consequences that would be suffered if the court declined to hear the matter urgently. Mere lip service to urgency requirements will not suffice. An applicant must make out a case for urgency and demonstrate that delay would result in irreparable harm or render eventual relief ineffectual. The degree of relaxation from normal procedures should not be greater than the exigency of the case demands.

The court observed that it was unfortunate and telling that the applicant did not address the court on urgency at all, proceeding directly to merits, which indicated the applicant was aware his case did not meet the requirements for urgent treatment. The court also noted that a party favoured with urgent hearing gains considerable advantage over other litigants, and therefore must justify this preferential treatment with facts that distinguish the case from others, without breaching the principle that similarly situated litigants are entitled to be treated alike. The certificate of urgency should show that the legal practitioner carefully examined the founding affidavit for facts supporting urgent treatment.

This case reinforces the strict requirements for urgent applications in Zimbabwean courts and serves as a reminder that parties seeking urgent relief must properly demonstrate urgency in their founding papers. It emphasizes that mere desire for expedited hearing does not constitute urgency, and that applicants must show both the need for prompt action and the consequences of delay. The case also illustrates that the court will not allow parties to bypass the urgency requirement by simply proceeding to merits without addressing the threshold question of urgency. It applies South African jurisprudence on urgent applications, showing the persuasive authority of South African cases in Zimbabwean administrative and procedural law matters.