On 18 September 2018, the applicant filed a court application for review seeking the following relief spelt out in the draft order:“1. The decision of the first respondent in which she made an order for the rescission of default judgment in court case number 127/18 in favour of second respondent ...
On 18 September 2018, the applicant filed a court application for review seeking the following relief spelt out in the draft order:
“1. The decision of the first respondent in which she made an order for the rescission of default judgment in court case number 127/18 in favour of second respondent be and is set aside.
2. The application of second respondent for rescission of default judgment be remitted for rehearing before a different magistrate.”
On 28 September 2018, the second respondent filed its opposing papers.
BACKGROUND
On 5 February, the applicant initiated summons at the Magistrates Court claiming US$651 from the second respondent, the Zimbabwe National Roads Administration.
The applicant, on 21 May 2013, attempted to receive an exemption over a number of his motor vehicles from Zimbabwe National Roads Administration for the period extending 1 June 2013 to 31 May 2014.
The Zimbabwe National Roads Administration officials demanded a letter from a commercial garage certifying such automobiles inoperative for a specified period.
From 2013 to 2018, a number of correspondences took place between the applicant and the second respondent.
In January 2018, the applicant was told, by the Zimbabwe National Roads Administration, to pay a total of $696 licencing penalty and penalty fees up to 30 April 2018.
The applicant admitted to pay $45 but resolved to claim $651, being the difference between $699 and $45, which amount he argued was excessive and unjustified in his view.
On 25 February 2018, a default judgment was granted in favour of the applicant.
On 12 March 2018, the Zimbabwe National Roads Administration filed an application for rescission of judgment.
The second respondent also filed, on the same date, an ex parte application for stay of execution.
On 26 March 2018, the applicant filed his opposing papers for the rescission of judgment as well as stay of execution.
On 13 July 2018, the magistrate, the first respondent in this application, heard the application for rescission and stay and deferred her ruling to 27 July 2018.
It is common cause, that, both applications, for rescission and stay of execution, were granted.
The second respondent was given leave by the magistrate to file a notice of appearance to defend. It filed it, and, then, proceeded to file an exception to the current applicant's summons.
Meanwhile, the applicant embarked on a vitriolic attack of the judicial officer, the magistrate, through writing of letters up to the Chief Justice.
When the second respondent caused the exception to be set down for argument, the trial magistrate, recused herself, patently because of the attack by the applicant.
The exception was set down for 11 September 2018 and postponed to 20 September 2018 so that a different magistrate would deal with the matter.
Before the matter could be heard, as already indicated, the applicant filed a court application for review.
Meanwhile, the hearing of the exception was deferred indefinitely until the finalisation of the review application.
On 24 June 2019, I gave the following order, indicating that I would give reasons for that order:
“IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1. Points in limine raised by the 2nd Respondent is upheld.
2. Application for review is dismissed with costs on attorney client scale.”
