IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF ZIMBABWE CASE NO.

CCZ 23/33
HELD AT HARARE

In the matter between:-

JOSEPH CRNKOVIC APPLICANT

AND

THABANI MPOFU RESPONDENT

AFFIFAVIT - NOTICE TO CHIEF JUSTICE/REGISTRAR GENERAL OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT

1. The applicant refers to a letter dated the 2nd Of August 2023 from the Registrar of the
Constitutional in which it was stated that Joseph Crnkovic (a self-Actor) and Thabani Mpofu (legally
represented by Raymond Moyo) had 15 days to file Heads of Argument.

2. The applicant duly filed his heads of argument within the 15 days requested.

3. It is noted that 15 working days considering Saturdays/Sundays and Public Holidays have now
passed and the respondents’ legal practitioners have not filed heads of Argument with the time
frame requested by the Constitutional Court, and in line with the rules of the Constitutional Court.

4. The applicant draws the Honourable Court to the Constitutional Court Rules SI 61 of 2016
specifically PART VII HEADS OF ARGUMENT specifically section 39 parts three, five, six and seven
which states.

(3) Within 15 days after being called upon in terms of subrule (2) to file heads of argument, or
within such longer period as a judge may for good cause allow, the applicant’s or appellant’s legal
practitioner shall file with the registrar a document setting out the main heads of his or her
argument, together with a list of authorities to be cited in support of each head, and immediately
thereafter shall serve a copy on the respondent or the respondent’s legal practitioner.

(5) If, within the period prescribed in subrule (3), the registrar does not receive heads of argument from an
applicant or appellant who is represented by a legal practitioner, the matter shall be regarded as
abandoned and shall be deemed to have been dismissed:

(7) A respondent who has failed to file heads of argument in terms of this rule shall be barred the court or
judge may deal with the matter on the merits.

5. It is the applicant’s content that the respondents’ legal practitioners have failed to submit the
respondents heads of argument within the timeline the Constitutional Court Rules Dictate and the
Constitutional Court Rules dictate.
6. The applicant therefore prays that the respondents Notice of Opposition to the applicants Rule 21
Direct Access application as well as the respondents notice to appose the substantive application
must now in terms of Section 39 Rule 5 be regarded as abandoned and deemed to be dismissed.

As such there is no longer a valid notice of opposition for the respondents request to deny the
applicant rule 21 Direct Access and due to such the applicant prays that the relief sought of Rule 21
Direct access now be granted.

7. The applicant also prays in terms of Section 39 Rule 2` that the respondent is now barred from the
court regarding the notice of opposition to the Rule 21 Direct Access Application and the
underlying Section 85 Substantive Application.

8. With no notice of opposition in legal effect anymore, the applicant prays that the Honourable Court
appoints a Judge to deal with the matter based on merits, as prescribed by Section 39 (7) of the
Rules of the Constitutional Court of Zimbabwe.

9. Furthermore the applicant seeks an order for costs due to the fact that the notice of opposition to
the Rule 21 Direct Access Application has been dismissed in terms of the operation of Section 29,
Rule 21 of the Constitutional Court Rules.

This sworn at Harare this 28th Day of August 2023

Page 2 of 2
Heads of Argument in the matter between
Joseph Crnkovic and Thabani Mpofu Case Number: CCZ 33/23
Prepared by Joseph Crnkovic