Deputy Sheriff-Harare v Brownweel Marketing (represented by Reginald Chinyau) and National Railways of Zimbabwe Contributory Pension Fund

### Preamble
1
HH 243-12
HC 11825/11
---------


DEPUTY SHERIFF-HARARE

versus

BROWNWEEL MARKETING (represented by

REGINALD CHINYAU)

and

NATIONAL RAILWAYS OF ZIMBABWE

CONTRIBUTORY PENSION FUND

HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE

MATHONSI J

HARARE, 12 June 2012

Opposed Application

K. Musimwa, for the applicant

Ms F. Wuta, for the claimant

T. Pasirai, for the judgment creditor

MATHONSI J: The papers before me show that the claimant was served with the court application and in terms of the rules, if it was desirous to oppose the matter, it should have filed opposing papers. It did not.

In terms of r 232 the claimant, just like the judgment creditor, was required to file a notice of opposition. It is therefore not clear why the claimant thinks it has a right of audience given that in terms of r 233(3) it is now barred.

Ms Wuta, who has assumed agency on behalf of the claimant at the 11th hour, she having only filed the notice from the bar, applies for a postponement to regularise her papers. The application is opposed by the judgment creditor and Mr Pasirai submits that given that the applicant had ample time from 3 May 2012 to instruct counsel of its choice, the application for a postponement has no merit. I agree.

This matter is effectively unopposed to the extent that it relates to the claimant. It should have been dealt with on the unopposed roll.

Having looked at the claim itself, it also is demonstrably without merit and appears to have been made for purposes of buying time.

In the result, I make the following order, that

The application for a postponement is hereby dismissed.

The claimant’s claim to the goods placed under attachment is hereby dismissed and the said goods are declared executable.

The costs of this application shall be borne by the claimant on a legal practitioners and client scale.

Musimwa & Associates, applicant’s legal practitioners