Chirinda v Mike Campbell (Pvt) Limited

• Jurisdiction: South Africa
• Judge: Dr. LA Mondlane JP, Justice AG Pillay J, IJ Mtambo J, Dr R Kambovo J, Dr O B Tshosa J
• Judgment Date: 17 September 2008
• Citation: 2014 JDR 0337 (SADC)
• Hearing Date: 20 August 2008
• Court: Southern African Development Community Tribunal
• Docket Number: SADC (T) 09/08

Chirinda v Mike Campbell (Pvt) Limited
2014 JDR 0337 (SADC)

2014 JDR 0337 p1

Citation	2014 JDR 0337 (SADC)
Court	Southern African Development Community Tribunal
Case no	SADC (T) 09/08
Judge	Dr. LA Mondlane JP, Justice AG Pillay J, IJ Mtambo J, Dr R Kambovo J, Dr O B Tshosa J
Heard	August 20, 2008
Judgment	September 17, 2008
Appellant/; Plaintiff	Nixon Chirinda and Others
Respondent/; Defendant	Mike Campbell (Pvt) Limited and Others; Republic of Zimbabwe

Summary

International law — International tribunal — SADC Tribunal — Jurisdiction — Application for intervention — Application not listed on list of cases to be considered by Tribunal — Dispute not between applicants and State — Application for intervention dismissed.

2014 JDR 0337 p2

Judgment

RULING

Delivered by H. E. Justice Ariranga G. Pillay

On 17 June, 2008 the applicants filed an application to intervene in the case of Mike Campbell (Pvt) Limited and Others versus The Republic of Zimbabwe (Case No SADC (T) 2/07). The application was made pursuant to Article 30 of the Protocol on Tribunal (the Protocol) and Rule 70 of the Rules of Procedure of the SADC Tribunal (the Rules).

We shall first address the issue referred to so many times by learned counsel for the applicants in the course of his arguments, namely that the Tribunal was wrong to have heard the Campbell case, cited above, before dealing with the application of his clients, and at the same time to set the record straight. To be sure, if all other things were equal, the Rules and even plain commonsense would have required us to give priority to any intervener application and hear it before dealing with the main case to which it relates-vide Rule 43 which governs priority of cases. We refused, however, to hear the application during the July session of the Tribunal for two basic reasons.

First, the application was not even listed on the cause list of cases to be considered by us during that session. The Campbell case, however, was listed. The application had indeed been filed only on 17 June, 2008, as mentioned above. If

2014 JDR 0337 p3

we had heard the application, we would have acted in breach of the Rules and opened the floodgates to last-minute applications like the present one.

Second, we saw at first glance from the application that the alleged dispute is between the present applicants and the applicants in the Campbell case and not between persons and State, as in the case of Albert Fungai Mutize and others versus Mike Campbell (Pvt) Limited and others (SADC (T) Case No. 8/08. It is to be noted that, in that case, learned counsel for the applicants also appeared and the Tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction to hear that application. We did not consider, therefore, that it was proper to give priority to the application and hear it.

We in fact decided to call in...