Zimbabwe Revenue Authority v Leapium Holdings t/a Leapmed Logistics and Others

On 1 January 2025, Zimbabwe Republic Police intercepted smugglers approximately 25km from Binga Centre. A truck (MAN TRUCK Reg No. AFJ 7658) belonging to the 1st respondent was detained by ZRA (applicant) after customs documents could not be produced. Three individuals (Antony Chabata, Ntokozo Sibanda, and Mpofu Tinos) were arrested. Notice of Seizure No. 036524L was issued to Chabata, the owner of the goods being conveyed. Only Chabata was convicted under section 182 of the Customs and Excise Act. Chabata, not being the truck owner, made no representations for its release. The 1st respondent (truck owner) then applied to the Binga Magistrates Court for the truck's release. The application was unopposed and granted by the 4th respondent (Provincial Magistrate). ZRA then sought review of this decision in the High Court. The applicant was not a party to the original proceedings in the magistrate's court.

• Whether the applicant had locus standi to review a decision in proceedings where it was not a party in the court a quo
• Whether the deponent's founding affidavit contained inadmissible hearsay evidence
• Whether the board resolution authorizing the deponent was defective
• Whether a bar operated against the 1st respondent for failure to file heads of argument within the prescribed time
• Whether service of heads of argument on the IECMS platform constitutes proper delivery

The application for review was struck off with costs against the applicant (Zimbabwe Revenue Authority).

1. Locus standi for review proceedings is on fairly wide grounds and extends to persons with a direct and substantial interest in the decision sought to be reviewed, even if they were not parties to the proceedings in the court a quo. This differs from appeals, which are confined to parties to the original case. 2. Hearsay evidence in affidavits in motion proceedings is inadmissible where: (a) the source of information is not disclosed; (b) admission would cause irremediable prejudice to the opposite party if shown to be incorrect; and (c) there is no justification (such as urgency) for presenting evidence in hearsay rather than direct form. 3. Court rules requiring service and filing of heads of argument within specified timeframes are mandatory, not optional. Failure to comply results in an automatic bar. The introduction of electronic filing systems (IECMS) does not eliminate the requirement for actual service on the opposing party - service can be physical or electronic, but must still occur.

The court observed obiter that for statutory bodies litigating on matters of magnitude, it is desirable to file resolutions that are recent and relevant to the subject matter in issue. While board resolutions need not be obtained for every litigation, annual resolutions would be reasonable. In this case, the applicant relied on a resolution from July 2023, two years before the proceedings were instituted. The court noted this was not ideal but did not decide the matter on this point as the hearsay issue was dispositive.

This Zimbabwean case, while not binding in South African law, provides persuasive authority on important procedural principles relevant to South African practice, particularly: (1) the distinction between locus standi in review versus appeal proceedings, confirming that review standing is broader than appeal standing; (2) the requirements for admissibility of hearsay evidence in motion proceedings, requiring disclosure of sources and justification; (3) the mandatory nature of compliance with court rules regarding service of court documents; and (4) that electronic filing systems do not replace requirements for proper service on opposing parties. The case reinforces that procedural compliance is not merely technical but substantive to ensuring fairness and expeditious litigation.