Online Reporter
Fidelis Munyoro-Chief Court Reporter
The High Court has dismissed an application by Fidelity Life Assurance Company of Zimbabwe Limited in which it sought to have proceedings in a long-running commercial dispute declared lapsed and certain discovery documents set aside.
“The application be and is hereby dismissed with costs,” said Justice Regis Dembure.
It was brought under Rule 43 of the High Court Rules, with Fidelity arguing that the summons in the main matter had lapsed under Practice Direction No. 1 of 2022, and that a supplementary discovery affidavit and discovery schedule filed in November 2025 constituted an irregular step.
The dispute arises from action proceedings filed in 2018 by CFI Holdings Limited, Langford Estates (1962) (Private) Limited and Crest Poultry Group (Private) Limited against Fidelity Life and several financial institutions, including CBZ Bank Limited and FBC Bank Limited, over a debt assumption and compromise agreement concluded in 2015.
Fidelity maintained that the plaintiffs’ failure to progress the matter within the time contemplated under the Practice Direction meant the summons had lapsed and no further procedural steps could be taken.
The respondents opposed the application, arguing that Rule 43 only applies where there are valid proceedings in existence and cannot be used to challenge the existence or validity of the summons itself.
Justice Dembure upheld the opposition on the second point in limine, finding that the application was “wrong and bad in law”.
“Rule 43(1) is only invoked where an irregular step or proceeding is alleged to have been taken in what a party believes are valid proceedings,” the judge said.
“If the cause of the complaint is that the summons has lapsed, it simply means that the action is no longer validly before the court.”
The court found that Fidelity’s reliance on the Practice Direction was misplaced, holding that it applied in limited circumstances and did not operate to terminate proceedings that had already reached litis contestation (close of pleadings).
Justice Dembure also noted that once pleadings had closed, the matter was not one that could be treated as an inactive summons for purposes of lapsing under the directive.
While the respondents had sought punitive costs on a legal practitioner-and-client scale, the court declined to grant such an order, finding no basis for a finding of abuse of the court process. The application was accordingly dismissed with costs.
