Freezewell Refrigeration Services (Pvt) Ltd. v Bard Real Estate (Pvt) Ltd. (Civil Appeal 374 of 2002; SC 61 of 2003) [2004] ZWSC 161 (1 March 2004)

1 SC  61/03 DISTRIBUTABLE    (52) Judgment No. SC 61/03 Civil Appeal No. 374/02 FREEZEWELL      REFRIGERATION      SERVICES      (PRIVATE)       LIMITED v     BARD       REAL     ESTATE      (PRIVATE)      LIMITED SUPREME COURT OF ZIMBABWE CHIDYAUSIKU  CJ,  CHEDA  JA  &  MALABA  JA BULAWAYO,  DECEMBER  1,  2003  &  MARCH  2,  2004 N Ndlovu, for the appellant K Ncube,  for the respondent MALABA   JA:     On dates undisclosed in the papers, but in January and February 2002, the appellant (“Freezewell Refrigeration”),  a private company, repaired   air  conditioners   and doors   in  a  building   complex  owned  by  the  Forestry Commission,  in   terms   of a contract  entered  into  with  the  respondent  (“Bard  Real Estate”),   an   estate   agent   which   managed   the   property.       When   Freezewell Refrigeration presented invoices for the work done and materials supplied, Bard Real Estate   objected   to   the   charges   alleging   that   they   were   unreasonably   high.       It, however,   paid   a   sum   of   $153 624.00   on   the   invoices   and   refused   to   pay   the outstanding balance of $403 156.00. On 14 March 2002 Freezewell Refrigeration instituted action in which it claimed the payment of the outstanding amount and costs of suit.   Bard Real Estate SC  61/03 entered   an   appearance   to  defend,   followed   by  a  plea   in   which  it   alleged   that  the amount the payment of which was claimed represented unreasonably high charges for the work done and materials supplied.   Instead of seeking further particulars of the plea, Freezewell Refrigeration made an application to the High Court for summary judgment which was opposed. In dismissing the application with costs on the legal practitioner and client scale on 17 October 2002 the learned judge said: “The respondent denied liability for the present charges on the grounds that they were exorbitant. Notwithstanding this plea which clearly discloses a defence on the part of the respondent, the applicant proceeded to apply for summary judgment. It cannot be said that the applicant has established a clear and unanswerable case upon which an application of that nature can be granted. The respondent is entitled to query the reasonableness of the charges levied against it. This applicant alleges that an officer of the respondent had verbally agreed to meet the charges. This is denied by the respondent, thereby giving rise to a factual dispute which cannot be resolved without hearing viva voce evidence.   Further it is obvious that in the circumstances the sum claimed cannot be regarded as liquid as it is subject to proof.     Accordingly there is absolutely no merit in this application.     The application is hereby dismissed with costs on the higher scale.” On   31   October   2002   Freezewell   Refrigeration   filed   a   document purporting to be a notice of appeal against the part of the judgment awarding costs on the legal practitioner and client scale.   The document as a notice of appeal was fatally defective as it did not state the exact nature of the relief which was sought on appeal, thereby contravening the mandatory provisions of Rule 29(1)(e) of the Rules of the SC  61/03 Supreme Court. In  Talbert   v   Yeoman   Products   (Private)   Limited  S­111­99 MUCHECHETERE  JA   held   that   a   notice   of   appeal   which   suffered   from   defects arising from non­compliance with the provisions of Rule 29(1) was null and void. The learned  JUDGE  OF  APPEAL quoted with  approval at p 3 of the cyclostyled judgment from a judgment of KORSAH JA in Jensen v Acavalos 1993 ZLR 216 (S) where it was stated at p 220: “The reason is that a notice of appeal which does not comply with the rules (in that case the notice did not have a prayer for relief) is fatally defective and invalid. That is to say, it is a nullity. It is not only bad, but incurably bad, and, unless the Court is prepared to grant an application for condonation of the defect and allow a proper notice of appeal to be filed, the appeal must be struck off the roll with costs: De   Jager   v Diner & Anor 1957 (3) SA 567 (A) at 574 C–D. In Hattingh v Piennar 1977 (2) SA 182 (0) at 183, KLOPPER JP held that   a   fatally   defective   compliance   with   the   rules   regarding   the   filing   of appeals cannot be condoned or amended.   What should actually be applied for is an extension of time within which to comply with the relevant rule.” There was no amended notice of appeal accompanied by an application for an extension of time within which to file it and condonation for non compliance with the Rules. The appeal is therefore struck off the roll with costs. CHIDYAUSIKU  CJ:     I    agree. SC  61/03 CHEDA  JA:     I   agree. Lazarus & Sarif, appellant’s legal practitioners Job Sibanda & Associates, respondent’s legal practitioners