The applicant signed an acknowledgement of debt on 19 January 2012 acknowledging indebtedness to the first respondent in the sum of US$69,735.45. The applicant failed to comply with payment terms. A summons was issued on 14 February 2012 and served on the applicant. Although the applicant entered appearance to defend, it failed to file a plea and judgment was entered against it on 24 May 2012. The applicant did not pay the judgment debt. An application for a winding up order was filed on 20 July 2012 on grounds of inability to pay debts under s 206(f) of the Companies Act. The application was served on the applicant on 1 August 2012. The applicant filed no opposition. The matter was set down on the unopposed roll for 29 August 2012, with notice served on the applicant on 17 August 2012. A provisional winding up order was granted on 12 September 2012. Only after being served with the provisional order and the provisional liquidator moving in did the applicant file an urgent application seeking a stay of execution.
The application was dismissed with costs on an attorney and client scale.
Urgency which stems from deliberate or careless abstention from action until the day of reckoning is not the kind of urgency contemplated by the court rules governing urgent applications. A party that has repeatedly failed to take action when served with court processes, judgments, and notices cannot subsequently claim urgency when faced with the consequences of its own inaction. Where a provisional winding up order has a specified return date, the correct procedure is to contest the order on that return date rather than filing a separate urgent application for a stay of execution.
The court observed that even if the applicant's explanation that it only became aware of the order on 24 September 2012 were true, this would put into question the applicant's seriousness, particularly since the court application for winding up and notice of set down were served directly on the applicant through its General Manager. The court also noted that the applicant's rescission application did not explain what it intended to do about the default judgment of 24 May 2012, nor did it explain why the applicant failed to react when served with the winding up application and notice of set down. The court commented that a client must live with its choice of lawyers and rejected any suggestion that costs should be borne personally by the legal practitioner.
This case is significant in South African and Zimbabwean jurisprudence (the judgment is from Zimbabwe but applies similar common law principles) as it reinforces the principle that urgency in civil applications must be genuine and not self-created. It demonstrates that courts will not entertain urgent applications where a party has repeatedly failed to take action when opportunities were available, and has only rushed to court when faced with the consequences of its own inaction. The case also clarifies the proper procedure for challenging provisional winding up orders, emphasizing that parties should utilize the return date mechanism rather than filing separate urgent applications. The judgment serves as a warning to litigants that courts will not reward dilatory conduct by allowing parties to jump the queue on manufactured urgency.