ELVIS BASIRA

versus

VIMBAI MANEMO

HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE

MATHONSI J

BULAWAYO 23 FERBUARY 2018 AND 1 MARCH 2018

Urgent Chamber Application

Ms M N Sibanda for the applicant

M Mahaso for the respondent

            MATHONSI J:          An application which is not only based on falsehood but in which the applicant withholds vital information in order to mislead the court in the hope of obtaining an undeserved relief cannot succeed.  In such a situation, in dismissing the application, the court will also make an adverse or punitive order for costs as a seal of its disapproval of mala fides or dishonesty on the part of the litigant. See Batore Import & Export (Pvt) Ltd v Bayswater (Pvt) Ltd & Another HH 614-14 (unreported).  This approach flows from the fact that the utmost good faith must be observed by all litigants who approach this court seeking the indulgence of being heard on an urgent basis or ex parte.  In such an application, an applicant is required to disclose all facts relevant to the matter tending to have a bearing on the outcome.  This court always discourages urgent applications whether ex parte or not which are characterized by material non-disclosures.  See Graspeak Investments (Pvt) Ltd v Delta Corporation (Pvt) Ltd & Another 2001 (2) ZLR 551 (H) at 555C-D; Moyo & Another v Hassbro Properties (Pvt) Ltd & Another 2010 (2) ZLR 194 (H) at 197 A-B.

            This urgent application in which the applicant seeks an anti-dissipatory interdict preventing the respondent from disposing of her motor vehicle, a Mercedes Benz C220 registration number ABI 9423, is punctuated by material non-disclosures and falsehoods.  The applicant would like an order directing the respondent to keep the said motor vehicle at her house