On 21 November 2013, the High Court granted a default judgment ordering the release of a Toyota Sequoia motor vehicle to the respondent (Omega Chatyoka). The vehicle had been held by police as an exhibit in a criminal trial. The applicants alleged the vehicle belonged to one Farai Auxuilia Chidoori, not the respondent. The first applicant claimed he received the chamber application late on 25 October 2013 through detective G. Chiwande and could not file opposing papers within the prescribed time limits. However, the first applicant deposed to opposing papers on 14 November 2013, but this was already out of time and after judgment had been granted. The applicants sought rescission of the default judgment, arguing that the first applicant should not have been cited, the Commissioner General of Zimbabwe Republic Police should have been cited, and that they were not in wilful default.
The application for rescission of the default judgment was dismissed with costs on a higher scale.
1. In applications for rescission of default judgment, deliberate withholding of material information (such as the exact date of service) attracts adverse inferences against the applicant, following the principle in Leader Tread Zimbabwe (Pvt) Ltd v Smith HH 131/03. 2. Applicants seeking rescission must provide a reasonable and satisfactory explanation for their default; vague assertions of receiving documents "late" without specific dates are insufficient. 3. A party who claims that property belongs to a third party lacks locus standi to seek rescission of an order relating to that property - the proper course is for the alleged owner to bring the application. 4. The interest of law enforcement authorities in property held as an exhibit ceases upon conclusion of criminal proceedings. 5. Technical defects in citation that could have been raised timeously but were not raised until after default judgment will not ground rescission.
The court observed that "there was never any need for the applicants to file this application" given that they claimed the vehicle belonged to a third party (Chidoori) and their own interest had ended with the criminal proceedings. The court noted that Chidoori was the person who should have placed before the court clear prospects of regaining the vehicle with the support of law. The judge remarked that costs on a higher scale were justifiable given the lack of merit in the application, suggesting judicial disapproval of the bringing of the application in circumstances where the applicants had no real interest in the subject matter.
This case reinforces the principles governing rescission of default judgments in Zimbabwean law, particularly the requirements that applicants must provide a reasonable explanation for their default and demonstrate good prospects of success on the merits. It also illustrates the application of the principle from Leader Tread Zimbabwe regarding adverse inferences drawn from deliberate withholding of material information. The case emphasizes that parties must have proper locus standi to bring applications, and that authorities holding property as exhibits in criminal proceedings lose their interest once the prosecution concludes. The award of costs on a higher scale demonstrates the court's disapproval of unmeritorious rescission applications.