Trimiant Investments (Private) Limited and Others v TBIC Investments (Private) Limited and Others

Summons was issued in September 2018. The pre-trial conference was finalized in April 2021 and the matter was set down for trial on 23 November 2021. The matter was postponed several times. Before trial commenced, the 1st and 2nd defendants filed a notice to amend their plea to raise two points of law: (1) that the plaintiff had no locus standi in judicio by reason of de-registration under the Companies Act [Chapter 24:03], and (2) that the matter was res judicata by reason of the court's judgment in HC 4998/08. The plaintiffs filed a notice of opposition to the amendment, objecting to the procedural propriety of raising these points at this stage, but did not initially address the merits of the proposed points in limine. During subsequent hearings, a dispute arose about how the trial should proceed - whether the court should deal only with the procedural objection first, or address both the procedural objection and the merits of the proposed points in limine together.

• Whether the court gave a directive limiting the scope of the hearing to only the procedural objection raised by the plaintiffs
• Whether the court should deal with preliminary points in a piece-meal fashion or address both procedural objections and the merits of proposed points in limine together
• Whether it is in the interests of justice to require plaintiffs to address both procedural and substantive aspects of proposed amendments to pleas at the same time

The court ordered: (i) The hearing be postponed to a date to be fixed by the Registrar in consultation with the parties' counsel; (ii) The Plaintiffs are granted leave to respond to the merits of the 1st and 2nd defendants' intended application to raise points of law; (iii) The plaintiffs' response on the merits to be filed within 7 days of the date of this order; (iv) The issue of wasted costs is held over for argument at the end of the trial.

In the interests of justice, courts should avoid piece-meal approaches to determining preliminary points in civil trials. Where a party raises a procedural objection to the manner in which points in limine are raised, that party should also be required to address the merits of those points in limine at the same hearing, rather than being permitted to split the defences into separate hearings. Litigants must not adopt "hide and seek" tactics by first raising only procedural objections and then, if unsuccessful, seeking additional time to address the merits separately on another occasion.

The court made observations about the inappropriateness of tactical litigation conduct and emphasized that parties should conduct litigation in a straightforward manner rather than attempting to gain procedural advantages through fragmented defences. The court indicated that all related preliminary points should be addressed together to avoid multiple judgments on procedural matters in the same case.

This case provides important guidance on civil procedure in Zimbabwe, particularly regarding the principle that courts should avoid piece-meal determination of preliminary points and should require parties to address both procedural and substantive objections together where appropriate. It discourages tactical litigation strategies where parties split their defences to delay proceedings. The judgment emphasizes efficiency in civil litigation and prevents parties from adopting "hide and seek" tactics that fragment the hearing of related issues.