Chido Erica Felicity Matewa v Makoni Rural District Council

The Applicant filed summons against the Respondent in February 2012 (case number HCH4124/12) claiming damages for property and crops. On 14 December 2016, the High Court awarded damages of US$100,000 for loss of property and vandalism, and US$150,000 for unlawful interference with farming activities and loss of crops, plus interest and costs. The Respondent appealed, and on 23 March 2018, the Supreme Court remitted the matter to the High Court for quantification of damages. The Applicant's former legal practitioners wrote to the Registrar seeking to set down the matter for quantification, but the Applicant did not hear from them thereafter. On 7 November 2025, the Applicant discovered that the matter had been deemed abandoned and dismissed for want of prosecution. She then filed an application for reinstatement. The Respondent opposed, arguing the Applicant failed to demonstrate prospects of success, failed to explain the period of inactivity, and failed to disclose that the matter was set down for hearing on 27 January 2020 and that she was advised on 26 September 2025 to take corrective action.

• Whether the application for reinstatement met the requirements for reinstatement, including extent of delay, explanation for delay, and prospects of success
• Whether the Applicant's failure to disclose certain information amounted to material non-disclosure sufficient to dismiss the application
• Whether the Applicant adequately demonstrated prospects of success in the main matter
• Whether reliance on a Supreme Court decision confirming liability is sufficient to establish prospects of success for quantification of damages

A. The application for reinstatement is granted. B. The Applicant's matter in case number HC4124/12, in which it is the Plaintiff, is reinstated on the roll. C. Applicant is directed to set down the matter in case number HCH4124/12 within 30 days from the date of this order. D. There shall be no order as to costs.

In applications for reinstatement, where a court has already determined liability in favor of the applicant and this has been confirmed on appeal, with only quantification of damages remaining, the applicant has demonstrated sufficient prospects of success to warrant reinstatement. The test for prospects of success requires showing a realistic chance of success and that the case is reasonably arguable, not that it is merely possible or not hopeless. Where an applicant relies on legal practitioners and verily believes they are prosecuting a matter, this provides sufficient explanation for delay in the absence of evidence of willful default. An applicant cannot be punished for material non-disclosure where there is no evidence they had knowledge of the undisclosed facts. Strong prospects of success may compensate for inordinate delay and a weak explanation for delay.

The court observed that the Applicant could have done more to ensure that her matter was expeditiously prosecuted, suggesting a degree of personal responsibility on litigants to monitor their cases even when represented by legal practitioners. The court referenced the principle from Kodzwa v Secretary for Health & Anor 1999 (1) ZLR 313 (S) that condonation is not a mere formality and the court's power to grant relief should not be exercised arbitrarily, but with proper judicial discretion and upon sufficient grounds. The court also noted the importance of bringing finality to litigation as a factor weighing in favor of granting the application.

This case demonstrates the Zimbabwean courts' approach to reinstatement applications and condonation of non-compliance with procedural rules. It illustrates the court's willingness to prioritize finality of litigation and substantive justice over strict adherence to procedural requirements where an applicant can demonstrate reasonable prospects of success, even where the delay is inordinate. The case clarifies that where liability has been established by higher courts and only quantification remains, this constitutes sufficient prospects of success for reinstatement purposes. It also shows the court's approach to material non-disclosure, holding that an applicant should not be punished for failing to disclose facts they did not know about, particularly where they relied on legal practitioners.