TRUST MERCHANT BANK LTD v LEWIS MURODZO ENTERPRISES (PVT) LTD & ANOR 1998 (2) ZLR 387 (H)

Flynote

Costs — legal practitioner — award against — poorly presented pleadings, containing much unnecessary material — legal practitioner not entitled to recover fees for such work

Headnote

There is no formal rule that a party should attach to his pleadings any documents at all, even a document on which the claim is founded. The decision whether or not to attach a document, or merely set forth its material portions or even simply refer to it, will depend on the bulk of the document or documents and more importantly on the desirability or otherwise of having the whole document available on the pleadings. Where it is essential to attach a document in order to set out the cause of action, that should be done if it can be done without surplusage: for example, a standard deed of suretyship. But in other situations - for example, a case depending on an insurance policy - a reproduction of the material parts, or a referral to the document, will be preferable.

Bank statements, invoices, delivery notes, receipts and the like should not be attached. They are all evidentiary documents which do not found the cause of action.

It is no compliance with the rules of court, and is an affront to the court, to attach to the summons or declaration lengthy and bulky statements of account containing masses of raw material which require critical appraisal, collation and analysis. It is the duty of the legal practitioner to reduce this information to a simple schedule or calculation. The egregious and excessive attachment of documents is contrary to the rule against pleading evidence. It is a discourtesy to the court and seeks to place on the court the function of preparation and quantification which the legal practitioner expects to be paid for. Such pleading will not be tolerated, and practitioners should not be surprised to find themselves visited with the costs.