News / Local
Chamisa MPs' Supreme Court appeal trashed
22 Feb 2024 at 10:45hrs | Views
Recalled legislators and senators from the Citizens Coalition for Change (CCC) must once again submit their appeal to the Supreme Court, marking the third attempt, as their recent application was dismissed due to failure to pay the required US$5000 security costs.
The initial group, recalled by Sengezo Tshabangu in October of the previous year, saw their first application removed from consideration in December due to fatal defects.
During Thursday's session, a three-panel bench chaired by Supreme Court judge Justice Elizabeth Gwaunza, alongside Antoneta Guvava and Alphius Chitakunye, ruled that the lawmakers must provide US$5000 as security costs for their case to proceed.
Advocate Amanda Ndlovu, representing the MPs, clarified that the failure to pay was not intentional and assured that the appeal would be resubmitted.
"There is an acknowledgment that the security costs were not addressed according to legal requirements. Consequently, it has been deemed dismissed by operation of the law," she stated.
Ndlovu emphasized that the situation arose from communication issues between the parties and reiterated that there was no malice intended.
Following the court proceedings, Ndlovu noted that since their case had not been heard on its merits, they retained the option to file another application after resolving the security costs issue.
Representing Tshabangu, Ngobani Ndlovu argued that proper court procedures were not followed, alleging a violation of court rules.
In December of the previous year, the Supreme Court had identified defects in the legislators' application, as lawyers had failed to comply with the court's filing rules by not citing all involved parties from the High Court as respondents.
The Supreme Court clarified that the parties before the High Court should be consistent with those before the apex court.
Two notices of appeal were filed before the Supreme Court, one representing the initial group of 14 MPs recalled from parliament by Tshabangu, and another for the four senators recalled simultaneously.
Despite the consolidation of cases for ruling before the High Court, the appeals were filed separately, resulting in discrepancies in representation.
The initial group, recalled by Sengezo Tshabangu in October of the previous year, saw their first application removed from consideration in December due to fatal defects.
During Thursday's session, a three-panel bench chaired by Supreme Court judge Justice Elizabeth Gwaunza, alongside Antoneta Guvava and Alphius Chitakunye, ruled that the lawmakers must provide US$5000 as security costs for their case to proceed.
Advocate Amanda Ndlovu, representing the MPs, clarified that the failure to pay was not intentional and assured that the appeal would be resubmitted.
"There is an acknowledgment that the security costs were not addressed according to legal requirements. Consequently, it has been deemed dismissed by operation of the law," she stated.
Ndlovu emphasized that the situation arose from communication issues between the parties and reiterated that there was no malice intended.
Following the court proceedings, Ndlovu noted that since their case had not been heard on its merits, they retained the option to file another application after resolving the security costs issue.
Representing Tshabangu, Ngobani Ndlovu argued that proper court procedures were not followed, alleging a violation of court rules.
In December of the previous year, the Supreme Court had identified defects in the legislators' application, as lawyers had failed to comply with the court's filing rules by not citing all involved parties from the High Court as respondents.
The Supreme Court clarified that the parties before the High Court should be consistent with those before the apex court.
Two notices of appeal were filed before the Supreme Court, one representing the initial group of 14 MPs recalled from parliament by Tshabangu, and another for the four senators recalled simultaneously.
Despite the consolidation of cases for ruling before the High Court, the appeals were filed separately, resulting in discrepancies in representation.
Source - newzimbabwe
