Willard Maphios Moyo v The Provincial Magistrate in Charge of Matabeleland Province

The appellant lodged a notice of appeal against a decision of the Provincial Magistrate in Charge of Matabeleland Province. During the hearing on 6 February 2012, the court pointed out to the appellant's legal practitioner that the notice of appeal was fatally defective as it did not contain the exact nature of the relief sought, which is a mandatory requirement under Rule 7(d) of the Supreme Court (Miscellaneous Appeals and References) Rules, 1975. The appellant's legal practitioner had no option but to seek that the matter be struck off the roll. The respondent did not seek an order of costs.

• Whether a notice of appeal that does not comply with Rule 7(d) of the Supreme Court (Miscellaneous Appeals and References) Rules, 1975 is fatally defective
• Whether a notice of appeal that fails to state the exact nature of the relief sought can proceed

The matter was struck off the roll with no order as to costs.

A notice of appeal that does not comply with the mandatory requirements of Rule 7(d) of the Supreme Court (Miscellaneous Appeals and References) Rules, 1975, specifically the requirement to state the exact nature of the relief sought, is fatally defective and cannot proceed. Such non-compliance warrants the matter being struck off the roll.

The court observed that it appeared most appellants were ignoring the basic requirements of Rule 7, resulting in notices of appeal being fatally defective. This was a general comment about a concerning trend in procedural compliance rather than a finding necessary to the decision in this particular case.

This case reinforces the importance of strict compliance with procedural rules governing notices of appeal in Zimbabwean courts. It serves as a reminder to legal practitioners that failure to include all mandatory requirements under Rule 7 of the Supreme Court (Miscellaneous Appeals and References) Rules, 1975, particularly the exact nature of the relief sought, will result in the notice being fatally defective and the matter being struck off the roll. The judgment highlights the court's concern that many appellants were ignoring these basic procedural requirements.