Zhakata Tapfumaneyi and Harare South Residence Association and Harare South Constituency Development and Lusty Musayanembeu v Xinfeng Li and Others

The applicants applied for an urgent stay of execution of a court order granted in HCH 2637/20, pending determination of an application for rescission of judgment (HCH 3256/25). The applicants claimed they were served with a writ of ejectment pursuant to the HCH 2637/20 order, which they alleged affected them despite not being cited as respondents in that matter. They claimed occupation of property described as Subdivision A of Subdivision A of Nyarangu of Subdivision A Stoneridge, Harare, not through the respondents cited in HCH 2637/20. The first applicant was chairperson of the second applicant and had previously participated in related proceedings (HCH 2277/24) in 2024. The applicants claimed they were allocated the land by the Minister of Local Government. The third and fourth applicants did not file founding affidavits.

• Whether the matter was urgent and qualified for urgent hearing
• Whether there was material non-disclosure by the applicants that warranted dismissal
• Whether the third and fourth applicants were properly before the court
• Whether a special costs order on an attorney-client scale was warranted

1. The application is dismissed. 2. The applicants shall pay costs on the attorney-client scale jointly and severally, the one paying the others to be absolved.

1. A matter is not urgent where the need to act arose at an earlier point in time but the party deliberately abstained from action until the deadline approached. Urgency stemming from deliberate or careless inaction until the day of reckoning is not the urgency contemplated by the rules. 2. Material non-disclosure of facts that might affect the granting of an order in an urgent application justifies dismissal of the application, particularly where the non-disclosure is deliberate and intended to mislead the court. 3. Litigants in urgent applications owe a duty of utmost good faith to make full disclosure of all material facts. 4. Punitive costs on an attorney-client scale are warranted where there is misconduct including dishonesty and deliberate intent to mislead the court.

The court noted that ordinarily where a matter is not urgent, the appropriate relief is to strike it off the roll of urgent matters, whereupon it automatically migrates to the ordinary roll by operation of law. However, in this case, the dimension of material non-disclosure justified outright dismissal rather than striking off. The court also observed that even if the third and fourth applicants were unaware of the falsehoods and material non-disclosure (which the court did not believe), the application would not be saved from the consequences thereof.

This case reinforces important principles in Zimbabwean civil procedure regarding urgent applications. It demonstrates that courts will strictly scrutinize claims of urgency and will not condone self-created urgency arising from deliberate delay. The judgment emphasizes the duty of utmost good faith required in urgent applications and confirms that material non-disclosure, particularly deliberate misrepresentation intended to mislead the court, justifies dismissal rather than merely striking the matter off the urgent roll. The case also illustrates when punitive costs orders on an attorney-client scale are appropriate, namely where there is dishonesty and deliberate misconduct by litigants.