Wilbert Munonyara v CBZ Bank Limited and Others

The applicant had been involved in protracted litigation with CBZ Bank Limited since 2010, seeking to prevent the sale of his property in execution. The applicant alleged fraudulent conduct by the respondent bank in obtaining a judgment against him. The applicant appeared in person and brought an urgent chamber application in 2014, four years after the initial judgment. The fraud allegations were also extended to directors of a company called Prinsbourough Marketing. Despite the lengthy history of litigation, the applicant had never brought a specific application for rescission of the judgment that formed the basis of his concerns. Execution of the judgment had been completed.

• Whether the matter should be heard on an urgent basis
• Whether the applicant's delay in seeking appropriate remedies justified treating the application as urgent
• Whether the failure to apply for rescission of judgment timeously affected the urgency of the current application

The court declined to hear the matter on an urgent basis. The applicant was ordered to pay the costs of the application.

An applicant who has failed to timeously take appropriate remedial action, particularly where years have passed without seeking rescission of a judgment forming the basis of their complaint, cannot establish urgency sufficient to justify hearing a matter on an urgent basis. Self-created urgency through delay and failure to pursue proper legal remedies will not be recognized by the court.

The court expressed concern that the applicant had been "in and out of this same court" repeatedly with the sole objective of saving his property from sale, rather than pursuing the proper remedy of rescission of judgment. The judge also noted with concern that fraud allegations had been extended to directors of Prinsbourough Marketing, suggesting a pattern of escalating but unsubstantiated allegations without proper legal foundation being pursued.

This case illustrates the Zimbabwean High Court's approach to urgent applications where there has been unreasonable delay by the applicant. It emphasizes that litigants must pursue appropriate remedies (such as rescission applications) timeously and cannot create urgency through their own inaction. The case demonstrates the principle that self-created urgency or urgency arising from a party's failure to take timeous action will not be indulged by the courts.