Online Reporter
Fidelis Munyoro
Chief Court Writer
HWANGE Coal Gasification Company (Pvt) Ltd bid to resuscitate its appeal against an interdict issued in favour of Paarlweb Investments (Pvt) Ltd has failed after the Supreme Court ruled the appeal had no prospects of success.
In a judgment handed down by Justice Paddington Garwe sitting in chambers, the court declined to grant condonation and extension of time for Hwange Coal to inspect and certify the appeal record, as well as its request for reinstatement of the appeal under SC 344/24.
Hwange Coal had approached the Supreme Court after the High Court granted a final interdict barring the company from communicating allegations it made in letters dated February 15, 2024 and April 17, in which it accused Paarlweb of criminal conduct related to coke theft.
The High Court had also ordered Hwange Coal to retract the letters and refrain from repeating the allegations, ruling that they were unsubstantiated and injurious to Paarlweb’s business interests.
However, the appeal was automatically deemed abandoned after Hwange Coal failed to file its certificate of record inspection within the time stipulated by court rules.
The company argued that the delay was due to technical issues on the Integrated Electronic Case Management System (IECMS), claiming it was unable to upload the certificate by July 3 2024, deadline.
In opposition, Paarlweb’s lawyers contended that the applicant’s excuse lacked credibility, pointing out inconsistencies in its explanation regarding the system’s malfunction.
Justice Garwe ruled that although the delay was minimal and the explanation plausible enough to warrant condonation, the application ultimately failed due to the poor prospects of success in the intended appeal.
“There being no reasonable prospects of success, the present application cannot succeed,” the court ruled. “Accordingly, the application is hereby dismissed with costs.”
The Supreme Court was critical of Hwange Coal’s grounds of appeal, which it said failed to address the core issues decided by the High Court.
Notably, the appeal focused on whether defamation had occurred, rather than tackling the basis upon which the interdict was granted.
“The order of the court a quo was purely interdictory. It did not include any finding of defamation,” said Justice Garwe.
The court also found that the appeal grounds were either vague, lacked substance or were based on issues not raised in the court below.
It dismissed Hwange Coal’s assertions that the High Court erred in failing to call for expert evidence or that there were unresolved disputes of fact warranting a full hearing.
Further, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision to award punitive costs against Hwange Coal, citing the company’s persistent accusations despite police findings that cleared Paarlweb of wrongdoing.
“This attitude calls for censure, hence the special order for costs is warranted,” the High Court had ruled.
Hwange Coal was represented by Manase and Danana Legal Group while Paarlweb was represented by Hogwe and Nyengedza law firm.
Afrochine Smelting, cited as the second respondent, did not oppose the application.
