Zimbabwe: Biti Application for Stay of Proceedings Dismissed

CCC vice president Tendai Biti has lost the latest of his many attempts to have his charges of verbally assaulting a woman after a court hearing formally stayed in the magistrates court while another application is being considered for a referral to the Constitutional Court.

High Court judge Justice Rodgers Manyangadze has dismissed Tendai Biti’s urgent court application for review of his dismissed application for referral to the Constitutional Court and temporary stay of proceedings at the magistrate’s court.

Biti is facing charges of assaulting an investor, Mrs Tatiana Aleshina, at the Harare Magistrates Court, shouting at her and threatening her and what should have been a simple trial on a relatively minor charge has become a mesh of applications and appeals and applications for appeal involving much of the judicial system.

In his ruling, Justice Manyangadze said that a perusal of Biti’s papers shows that the main grievance of the latest application he was now considering was that proceedings in the magistrates court be stayed pending the hearing and determination of the review application in a higher court.

“It has now been agreed that the review be disposed of on an urgent basis, with timelines that place it before the resumption of trial. Clearly, it is anticipated that the substantive matter will be resolved before trial continues,” he said.

Thus Justice Manyangadze said in his view, the development renders the ancillary application superfluous and redundant. “It defeats the argument, strenuously advanced on behalf of the applicant, that the review application will be rendered moot or academic,” said Justice Manyangadze.

A fundamental requirement for the grant of an urgent interdict had not been met. Urgent interdicts are designed to prevent irreparable harm to a party while the substantive legal matter moves through the normal court system. They do not sort out the legal differences, simply ensure that nothing irreversible happens until the appropriate court has made the final decision.

Justice Manyangadze said this requirement, as highlighted in Biti’s papers, was that irreparable harm would occur if the interdict is not granted, and in particular that the trial would produce a verdict and possibly a sentence before a higher court had ruled that the trial could go ahead. Justice Manyangadze did not accept the argument and so considered that this latest application for a delay should fail on that basis alone.

“Other considerations, such as the prospects of success, become unnecessary. If anything, they place the judge in a somewhat invidious position, it having been agreed that the same judge shall urgently hear and determine the review application,” he said.

He further stated that it is therefore in the interest of justice that the merits or otherwise of the review matter, be determined after they are fully ventilated at the normal hearing.