Judgment No. SC 18/18 Civil Appeal No. 137/16 respondents a further grace period and a referral to arbitration. The first and fourth respondents had not sought such orders. Such orders cannot be sustained at law. They seem to have been motivated by equity and sentiments of justice rather than the law and the facts, as demonstrated by the court a quo’s narration of the exploits of the legendry “judge jackal” in setting free a man who was about to be eaten by a leopard he had rescued from a trap. Where a court is of the view that an order not sought by the parties may meet the justice of the case, it must put that possible relief to the parties and allow them an opportunity to address it on such an order. In Proton Bakery (Pvt) Ltd v Takaendesa 2005 (1) ZLR 60 (S) at page 62E-F GWAUNZA JA said: “The appellant argues, in the light of all this, that the action of the court a quo in reaching a material decision on its own, amounted to gross irregularity justifying interference by this court on the principles that have now become trite. I am, for the reasons outlined below, persuaded by this argument … The misdirection on the part of the court a quo is left in no doubt. It is my view, so serious as to leave this Court with no option but to interfere with the determination of the lower court.” The determination by the court a quo, of matters not placed before it, goes against a litigant’s right to be heard and this view is supported in the fourth edition of Judicial Review of Administrative Action by J. M. Evans at pages 157-158 where it was highlighted that the principle that “no man is to be judged unheard” is an age-old view adopted from the ancient Greeks. This principle has been adopted in our system under the audi alteram partem Rule. Therefore, the fact that the respondents are not taking issue with the court’s mero motu decision is, neither here nor there. This irregularity militates against the validity of parts of the judgment of the court a quo. 14