HARARE – The Supreme Court has rejected an appeal filed at the apex court by the first batch of CCC legislators ousted October last year from both the national assembly and the senate on the orders of self-proclaimed interim party secretary general Sengezo Tshabangu.

This followed their failure to pay US$5,000 security for costs.

Their first appeal was struck off the roll in December last year.

In the subsequent case, it emerged that the MPs had not paid, relying on the fact that their initial application was not heard.

They were of the view that the fee should have covered the latter appeal.

“The present appeal was deemed abandoned for failure to pay costs,” Advocate Lewis Uriri, lawyer representing Tshabangu said.

“The present appeal was filed on December 13. The appellants were obligated to enter sufficient security within 30 days.

“We submit that has not been done. The appeal was then deemed dismissed and abandoned.

“My learned friends take two points. That they tendered the security for costs in the appeal itself.

“The second point they take is that they trans-located the costs that have been paid in SC631/23. SC631/23 involved an appeal by the same parties against the same judgement.

“Security was agreed at US$5,000 and paid in November 2023.

“The appeal was struck off the roll. My learned friends submit that the money paid in SC631/23 is good security.

“We submit differently. That money was for SC631/23. It cannot be transferred to the present appeal.”

Representing the MPs, Advocate Amanda Sihle Ndlovu admitted that payment of security costs had not been made.

“I have been informed that the letter was uploaded but has not been approved by the registrar.

“There is an acceptance that the security of costs has not been done according to the law. By operation of the law, it has been deemed dismissed,” she said.

Ndlovu also asked the court to pardon the defence for failing to do as expected saying it was not willful.

“I would pray that each party pays its own costs.

“This situation is because of a communication between the parties.

“It was an issue that had to be responded to by the respondents.

“It was not one born out of contempt or attempt to prejudice the respondents. There is no malice intended on the part of the applicants; so we pray that each party bear its own costs,” she said.