Zimbabwe Energy Workers Union v Angelina Chitambo

### Preamble
1
HH 812-18
HC 3351/18
---------


ZIMBABWE ENERGY WORKERS UNION

versus

ANGELINE CHITAMBO

HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE

ZHOU J

HARARE, 14 November 2018

Opposed Matter

V. Mazhetese, for the applicant

L. Madhuku,for the respondent

ZHOU J: This is an application for the recovery of a motor vehicle, a Toyota Fortuner Reg. No. AEC 8695, from the respondent. The respondent is the President of the applicant albeit that Presidency is being challenged by some in the leadership of the applicant who moved a vote of no confidence against her. It is common cause that on 23 February 2018 a Provisional Order was granted in HC 1147/18 the effect of which, inter alia, was to suspend the effect of the vote of no confidence passed against the respondent. That order is extant notwithstanding the noting of an appeal against it, because leave for it to remain in operation pending determination of the appeal was granted pursuant to an application by the respondent in case No. HC 2343/18.

The respondent has taken the point in limine in opposition to the instant application that the application has not been authorised by the applicant but by certain persons who are involved in a leadership dispute with her. The objection is insurmountable. No resolution of the applicant to authorise the proceedings has been tendered. Indeed, no other proof of such authority has been availed.

While the position of the law is that it is not in every case that a resolution is required to prove that a juristic persona has authorised proceedings, where such authority is challenged it is incumbent upon those instituting the proceedings to prove such authority. This is particularly necessary where there is a leadership dispute and there is a dispute as to whether a person or some persons have the authority of a body corporate to institute proceedings in its name. In casu, no such authority has been established.

On the question of costs, in view of my conclusion that there is no evidence that the applicant authorised the court application, it would be improper for it to be mulcted with an order of costs. It is only appropriate that the deponent to the founding affidavit meets the costs of this application.

In the result, It is ordered that:

The application be and is hereby dismissed.

The costs shall be paid by Peter Shotere de bonis propriis.

Mazhetese & Partners, applicant’s legal practitioners

Lovemore Madhuku Lawyers, respondent’s legal practitioners