The case, heard
by Justice Joel Mambara, revolved around a default judgment granted in July,
which had ordered the immediate return of the equipment to Jiayuan Investments
(Pvt) Ltd.
Officer
Commanding Police (Mashonaland Central Province) and the Commissioner-General
of police, citing procedural barriers, argued that the equipment had been
lawfully forfeited to the State following a criminal conviction.
The dispute
began in May 2025, when Jiayuan Investments was convicted in Bindura for
unlawful alluvial mining.
A magistrate
ordered the return of hired equipment to its owners while forfeiting other
machinery used in the offence to the State.
Jiayuan,
disputing the forfeiture, filed an urgent application in the High Court in
July, seeking a mandamus to compel the police to release the equipment.
With no
opposition filed and no police presence at the hearing, Justice Chikowero
issued the order in default, giving the police 48 hours to comply.
The police,
however, refused, arguing that the equipment’s forfeiture to the State made
compliance impossible.
They claimed
their failure to oppose the application stemmed from administrative delays tied
to the electronic filing system recently implemented in the courts.
By the time
their lawyers were linked to the case, the judgment had already been issued.
Acting swiftly, the police filed a rescission application less than a week
later.
Jiayuan’s legal
team opposed the rescission, raising preliminary objections.
They invoked
the “dirty hands” doctrine, arguing that the police, by defying the court’s
order, had no right to be heard.
They also
questioned the police’s legal standing, asserting that as enforcers of the law,
the police had no direct interest in the equipment’s ownership.
Justice Mambara
dismissed both arguments, emphasising that courts should prioritise justice
over procedural technicalities.
While
acknowledging the police’s failure to seek a formal stay of execution, the
court determined that the default judgment itself was the core issue, and
refusing to hear the application would risk injustice.
The judge
turned to the rescission’s merits, analysing whether the police met the legal
threshold.
Police
explained their default, citing tight timelines and technical glitches in
filing opposition.
They argued
they acted promptly upon learning of the judgment, filing the rescission
application within days.
On the merits,
they claimed the magistrate’s forfeiture order legally barred them from
releasing the equipment, making Jiayuan’s mandamus improper.
Jiayuan
countered that the forfeiture was invalid and that the police had no lawful
claim to the machinery.
Justice Mambara
found the police’s explanation credible and their defence arguable, noting that
the forfeiture’s legality and the mandamus’s propriety raised substantive legal
questions.
The court sided
with the principle that disputes should be resolved on their merits, granting
the rescission application and reinstating the case for a full hearing.
Jiayuan was
ordered to pay the costs of the application, with the court admonishing parties
against clinging to default judgments at the expense of justice.
For now, the
equipment remains in limbo, with ownership and legal rights set to be contested
in the reinstated proceedings. Herald
0 comments:
Post a Comment