Former Prisoners and Detainees in Pre-Independent Zimbabwe Pressure Group v Minister for War Veterans of the Liberation Struggle

### Preamble
1
HH 639 - 25
HCH 3852/24
---------


FORMER PRISONERS AND DETAINEES IN PRE-INDEPENDENT ZIMBABWE PRESSURE GROUP

versus

MINISTER FOR WAR VETERANS OF THE LIBERATION STRUGGLE

HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE

MUNGWARI J

HARARE; 16 October 2025

Opposed Application

C W Kanoti with L Kovi, for the applicant

T Kanengoni, for the respondent

MUNGWARI J:

Extempore Ruling

This is an opposed, consolidated Chamber application for condonation of the late filing of an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court as well as a chamber application for leave to appeal to the same court.

Background

On 30 May 2024, the parties appeared before me for a hearing in matter no HCH 5057/22. Prior to the commencement of the hearing, and in chambers, I discussed the matter with all counsels and sought clarity on the status of the case following the applicant's filing of a notice of withdrawal. I directed a number of questions to the applicant's legal practitioners. After the discussion, counsel for the applicant stated that there was no application before the court. He withdrew the matter and undertook to tender wasted costs. As a result of applicant’s submissions, I prepared and read out an order reflecting the position expressed by counsel.

The order reads as follows:

Matter is withdrawn.

Applicant to tender wasted costs.

To me, this signalled the end of the matter and the parties acknowledged the order. They left my chambers and I accordingly uploaded the order on to the IECMS platform.

Approximately four months later, the applicants have had a change of heart and have now filed the present application in which they seek leave to be condoned for the late filing of their application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.

The application is opposed by the respondents. Attached to the respondents’ opposing affidavit is the supporting affidavit of Panashe Chibanda, a legal officer in the Civil Division of the Attorney-General’s Office. Panashe Chibanda represented the Ministry of Finance and was in attendance in my chambers on 30 May 2024. He confirmed that the applicants withdrew their matter and as a result no determination in the matter was made.

At the hearing of this application, the parties elected to abide by their submissions on record. Notwithstanding, I directed a single question to the applicants’ counsel, Mr Kanoti. I asked him which judgment the applicant wanted appeal against in light of the applicant’s voluntary withdrawal of their own application. As expected, no cogent reasons were advanced, save to confirm that on the day in question the applicant’s counsel had indeed stated that there was no application before the court and that the matter stood withdrawn due to the applicants’ own actions.

In response, respondent’s counsel, Mr Kanengoni, emphasized that the applicant had voluntarily withdrawn the matter and this signalled the end of the matter.

Preliminary Objection

A reading of this application shows that the respondent raised a preliminary objection in its notice of opposition. In light of the brief background outlined above, as well as the respondent’s confirmation of this I will proceed to uphold the point in limine. Notably, there is no appealable judgment that was generated by this court on 30 May 2024 or any day thereafter. The withdrawal decision was made by the applicants of their own free will. Suggesting otherwise would cast serious doubt on the applicant’s counsel’s professional capabilities. This court merely recorded the applicants’ wish to withdraw the matter and this signalled the end of the matter.

The Supreme Court has the mandate to direct its attention and scrutiny to any judgment rendered by the High Court wherein it has considered the facts and the law applicable to a matter and made a determination. In casu, there is no such decision that was made. Where this is lacking, no appeal properly lies to the Supreme Court. By withdrawing the matter, the applicant extinguished this court’s jurisdiction to render any decision.

There is therefore merit in the preliminary objection and it is upheld. It is dispositive of this matter. There being no judgment to be appealed against, there is no valid application before this court. The matter ought therefore to be struck off the roll. Dismissing such an application would be a misdirection, as one cannot dismiss an irregularity or invalidity per se.

However, the applicants will not be permitted to escape payment of the costs incurred as a consequence of their inconsistent conduct and the wasting of the court’s time.

ACCORDINGLY, therefore it is ordered that:

Matter be and is hereby struck off the roll.

Applicants to pay costs of suit on an ordinary scale.

Mungwari J: ……………………………………………………….

Kanoti and Partners, applicant’s legal practitioners

Messrs Nyika Kanengoni & Partners, respondent’s legal practitioners