The respondent instituted summons action against the applicant in HC 1916/12 for payment of storage charges of US$641.00 per day from 9 March 2009. According to the deputy sheriff's return of service, the summons was served on 22 February 2012 at the applicant's place of business upon 'Eileen', a receptionist. No appearance was entered and default judgment was granted on 22 May 2012 by Mutema J. The applicant only became aware of the judgment on 6 June 2012 when the deputy sheriff came to attach property pursuant to a writ of execution. The applicant denied that service was properly effected, stating it had no receptionist or employee named Eileen. The actual receptionist, Tinotenda Mhonyera, deposed an affidavit stating she was on duty on 22 February 2012 and was never served with any court process. The goods in question belonged to Tel Access and were delivered to the respondent for storage following Tel Access's eviction from premises. The respondent's claim had grown to US$725,762.70 by April 2012.
1. The default judgment entered against the applicant in case number HC 1916/12 was rescinded. 2. The applicant was granted leave to file its notice of appearance to defend within ten (10) days of the date of judgment. 3. Costs of suit to be costs in the cause.
When determining an application for rescission of a default judgment under Rule 63, the court must exercise a wide discretion considering three factors in conjunction: (1) the reasonableness of the explanation for default; (2) the bona fides of the application; and (3) the bona fides of the defence on the merits with prima facie prospects of success. While a deputy sheriff's return of service constitutes prima facie evidence of service under s 20(3) of the High Court of Zimbabwe Act, once that return is challenged by the party alleged to have been served, the deputy sheriff must provide more than mere repetition of the return and must assist the court with additional details to determine the truthfulness of the alleged service. An unsatisfactory explanation on one factor may be strengthened by a very strong defence on the merits, and all factors must be considered holistically with the application as a whole.
The court made observations about the excessiveness of the respondent's claim for storage charges ($725,762.70 over three years at $641 per day), noting this brought to the fore the need, in the interest of justice, to interrogate those charges. The court also commented that the question of who is liable to pay between the applicant and Tel Access (the actual owner of the stored goods) was of paramount importance. The court noted that it would be impossible to make a finding on different signatures based merely on visual impression without the benefit of evidence from a handwriting expert. The court also observed that there is no legal basis for expunging submissions made by counsel in heads of argument, as the opposing party can only make counter submissions.
This case reinforces the Zimbabwean courts' application of the 'good and sufficient cause' test for rescission of default judgments, emphasizing the court's wide discretion. It clarifies that when a deputy sheriff's return of service is challenged, the deputy sheriff must provide more than mere repetition of the return and should furnish additional details to assist the court in determining truthfulness. The judgment demonstrates the court's willingness to grant rescission where there are genuine disputes about service and where the claim on the merits appears to warrant judicial interrogation, even if the explanation for default is not entirely conclusive. It also illustrates the balancing of factors required in rescission applications, where a strong defence on the merits can compensate for a somewhat weaker explanation for default.