SYBETH MUSENGEZI|| ED Challenger In Haste For Determination Of Case

In a move that shows that Sybeth Musengezi- a Zanu PF activist who is challenging the presidency of Zimbabwe leader Emmerson Mnangagwa- is in a hurry to have his case brought to finality, lawyers representing him haver dismissed a joinder application by the Federation of Non-Governmental Organisations Trust (Fongo) and Goodson Nguni, arguing that this would raise dust for purposes of frustrating and delaying the timeous determination of his case with no slightest intentions to pursue their application to finality.

According to Musengezi, Fongo and Nguni’s January 25 application showing interest in the case he is challenging Mnangagwa’s ascendancy to the Zanu PF secretary post and national presidency, would open floodgates whereby every adult Zimbabwean citizen and Zanu PF member would be eligible to join in the matter.

“I have opted for this application because in as far as I am concerned, the respondents are busy bodies far-removed from the relief that I seek in the main case, who, therefore, have no sufficient legal interest in the proceedings under case HC 568/21. To permit their joinder would open floodgates whereby, every adult Zimbabwean citizen of legal capacity could find themselves litigating the main case. Indeed every other member of the third respondent (Zanu PF in case HC 568/21) would be eligible to join,” said Musengezi in his founding affidavit.

“In so doing the respondents have succeeded in escalating my personal costs of litigation and should thus be muted with costs on punitive scale,” he added.

According to Musengezi, the pair of Fongo and Nguni failed or ignored to set down their matter for hearing, subsequently falling foul to rules set in terms of rule 59(16)(b) of the High Court rules, 2021.

“On January 25, the first and second respondents happened on the scene, filing an application to join proceedings in HC 568/22. They filed their application for joinder under cover of HC 460/22. On February 11, I caused to be filled in HC 469/22 my notice of opposition and opposing affidavit. Thereafter on March 16 the respondents filed their answering affidavits.

“I am advised that it was required of the respondents to set their application down for hearing within a period of a month of their having filed their answering affidavits in HC 469/22. I am advised that such a situation as the respondent in the aforementioned case may either apply for the stepdown of the matter on terms of the rules of this court or may make a chamber application to dismiss respondents’ matter for want of prosecution,” Musengezi submitted.