Jackson Muguti v B Chimbodza and Piniel Magadzire

### Preamble
1
HH 238-2012
HC 7929/10
---------


JACKSON MUGUTI

versus

B CHIMBODZA

and

PINIEL MAGADZIRE

HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE

MATHONSI J

HARARE, 6 June 2012

Opposed Application

The applicant in person

T Chiminye, for the 2nd respondent

MATHONSI J:  This is an application in which the applicant seeks an order in the following terms:

“1.	The decision of the first respondent in dismissing the application for the rescission of default judgment be and is hereby set aside and the application for the rescission of default judgment be and is hereby granted.

2.	The second respondent shall pay costs of suit.”

That it is an application for review is not apparent from the papers and one is only able to glean that from para 9 of the very brief founding affidavit of the applicant. There are no grounds for review set out in the application. The record of the proceedings sought to be brought on review has not been filed.

Order 33 of the High Court of Zimbabwe Rules, which governs the filing of review proceedings, is generally peremptory in its application. Rule 257 provides:

“The court application (for review) shall state shortly and clearly the grounds upon which the applicant seeks to have the proceedings set aside or corrected and the exact relief prayed for.”

There has been a signal failure by the applicant to comply with that rule. As already stated, the application does not state shortly and clearly the grounds which the applicant relies upon in seeking review. Neither does it state the exact relief that he seeks, which relief one only finds in the draft order.

Rule 260 also makes it mandatory for the record of proceedings to be lodged with the registrar. This has not been done.

In my view, the application is fatally defective and nothing can be done to resuscitate it.

In the result, the application is dismissed with costs.

Mabuye Zvarevashe, 2nd respondent’s legal practitioners