Cattle case collapses over legal blunder

The High Court in Bulawayo has struck a cattle ownership dispute off the urgent roll after finding that the certificate of urgency filed by the applicant's legal practitioner failed to comply with the requirements of the law.

In a judgment delivered by Justice Ngoni Nduna, the court ruled that the application brought by Petrus Louw Erasmus against Louis Petrus van der Merwe and several other respondents could not be heard on an urgent basis because the accompanying certificate of urgency was defective.

The dispute centres on the ownership of a number of cattle allegedly being held by the first respondent following the breakdown of a business partnership between Erasmus and Van der Merwe.

Also cited as respondents in the matter are Masvingo Bull Breeders (Pvt) Limited, Threeways (Pvt) Limited, the Minister of Agriculture, Mechanisation and Water Resources, the Commissioner-General of the Zimbabwe Republic Police and the Deputy Sheriff for Masvingo.

According to the judgment, the relationship between Erasmus and Van der Merwe had deteriorated significantly, resulting in several previous court appearances over disputes relating to the cattle.

The respondents challenged the validity of the certificate of urgency, arguing that it merely reproduced portions of the applicant's founding affidavit almost word for word and did not reflect an independent assessment by the legal practitioner who certified the matter as urgent.

Justice Nduna agreed, emphasising that a certificate of urgency is intended to provide the court with an independent professional opinion from a legal practitioner rather than a repetition of a litigant's allegations.

"It is improper for it to consist merely of extracts copied and pasted from the applicant's main papers," Justice Nduna ruled.

"The legal practitioner issuing the certificate of urgency must have read and understood the matter and appreciated the basis upon which it should be accorded priority and heard ahead of others."

In reaching his decision, the judge relied on established legal authorities, including General Transport & Engineering (Pvt) Ltd v Zimbank Corporation and East Rock Trading 7 (Pty) Ltd v Eagle Valley Granite, which stress that litigants seeking urgent relief must demonstrate that they cannot obtain adequate redress through the ordinary court process.

Justice Nduna held that once the certificate of urgency was found to be defective, the application could no longer qualify for urgent consideration.

"In the absence of such a certificate, the matter cannot be entertained as an urgent application," he said.

The court consequently struck the matter off the urgent roll and ordered the applicant to pay costs on the ordinary scale, declining the respondents' request for punitive costs.

The ruling reinforces the courts' insistence on strict compliance with procedural requirements governing urgent applications and underscores the obligation on legal practitioners to exercise independent professional judgment when certifying matters as urgent.