9 HMA 36-18 HC 263/18 oft quoted case of Kuvarega v Registrar-General & Anor 13 , patticularly the following seminal statement by CHATIKOBO J, at p 193 F -G: "What constitutes urgency is not only the imminent al1'ival of the day of reckoning; a matter is urgent, if at the time the need ·to act arises, the matter cannot wait. Urgency which stems from a deliberate or careless abstention from action until the dead-line draws near is not the type of urgency contemplated by the rules. It necessarily follows that the cmtificate of urgency or the suppmting affidavit must always contain an explanation of the non-timeous action ifthere has been any delay." [22] Mr Mushangwe argued that there was no explanation for the apparent delay by the applicants in bringing the urgent chamber application and that therefore there was no reason at all why it should be given priority ahead of all other matters pending before the courts. He submitted that the last of the incidents complained of had been more than 18 days old. Despite the founding affidavit having been commissioned on 14 June 2018, it was not untill9 June 2018 that the application had finally been filed. The application was no more than political grandstanding designed to attract media coverage. [23] In Triple C Pigs & Anor v Commissioner-General- Zimbabwe Revenue Authorityl 4 GOWORA J, as she then was, said that every litigant would want to have their matters heard urgently. The longer it takes to obtain relief, the more it seems that justice is delayed a11d thus denied. But the courts, in order to ensure the delivery of justice, endeavour to hear matters as soon as is reasonably practicable. In order to dispense justice fairly, a distinction is necessarily made between those matters that ought to be heard urgently and those to which some delay wc,mld not cause harm which would not be compensated by the relief that is eventually granted to such litigant. [24] Mr Mushangwe 's argument that the application largely hinged on the report by the Zimbabwe Human Rights Commission, or that there had been an unexplained delay in bringing the matter to court conveniently glossed over the sorrowful lamentation by the applicants that the violations were continuing. The application was a compilation of disparate grievances by disparate teachers from the disparate districts of Zimbabwe on the manifold wrongful activities by the respondents. The abuses were said to be on- 13 14 1998 [1] ZLR 188 [H] 2007 [1] ZLR 27 [H]