6 HMA 36-18 HC 263/18 [11] The dichotomy between Form 29B and Form 29 is a thoroughly weather beaten path: see Marick Trading [Pvt] Ltd v Old Mutual Life Assurance Company of Zimbabwe Ltd & Anor2; Zimbabwe Open University v Mazombwe 3 ; Base Minerals Zimbabwe [Private] Limited & A nor v Chiroswa Minerals [Private] Limited & Ors 4• [12] Form 29B accompanies ordinary chamber applications. One of its important features is that the substantive grounds for the application should be stated on the face of the application in summary fashion. On the other hand, Form 29 should accompany chamber applications that require to be served. The grounds of the application need not be set out on the face of the application. An important aspect of this Form is that it sets out a plethora of procedural rights that, among other things, notify the respondent of the application; his right to oppose, and the consequences of a failure to file opposing papers timeously. The minimum period or dies induciae given the respondent to file any opposing papers is ten [10] days, failing which the matter proceeds on an uncontested basis. But in urgent cases appropriate modifications have to be done to the Form to cut short the dies induciae. [13] In casu it was plain the applicants had used Form 29B. Thus no dies induciae were given on the face of the application. The first respondent's point was that since the chamber application was one to be served, it had to be accompanied by Form 29, not 29B, with appropriate modifications. That not having being done, the argument concluded, the application was not only bad, but it was incurably bad. You cannot put something on nothing and expect it to stay there. It will collapse: see McFoy v United Africa Co Ltd'. [14] I did not agree with the first respondent. Raising this point was just a mandatory ritual: see Rufasha v Bindura University ofScience Education & Ors 6 . The point was a 'sterile dispute' about forms: see Mazombwe, supra. The first respondent's authorities, pmticularly Marick Trading and Mazombwe above, were inapposite. Where the courts '2015 [2] ZLR 243 [Hl 3 2009 (1] ZLR 101 [H] 4 HH 559-14 5 [1963]3 AllER 1169 (PC), at p 11721 6 HMA 15-16