CHIDYAUSIKU v NYAKABAMBO 1987 (2) ZLR 119 (S)

Flynote

Appeal — notice of appeal — must be directed to order of court below and not to reasons for judgment -review — whether Supreme Court may review decisions of High Court.

Headnote

The respondent instituted a claim for damages against the appellant, who was at the time the Attorney-General. Subsequently the appellant was appointed as a judge of the High Court. When the respondent sought leave in terms of Rule 18 of the Rules of the High Court of Zimbabwe 1971 to continue the proceedings against the appellant, an order was made without opposition. The appellant noted an appeal to require the judge a quo to reconsider the matter. The notice of appeal merely required the matter to be remitted, without claiming that the decision was necessarily wrong. On appeal the validity of the notice of appeal was challenged. It was also argued, on behalf of the appellant, that the Supreme Court should treat the proceedings as though before it on review.

Held, that in order to be valid, a notice of appeal must be directed against the whole or part of the substantive order of the court below and not to its reasons for making the order.

Held, further, that the review powers of the Supreme Court are no greater than those of the High Court and are restricted to inferior courts.