The applicant assaulted the respondent, causing blindness in one eye and permanent disability. A default judgment was granted against the applicant. The applicant's legal practitioners handled the matter in a cavalier fashion, making numerous errors. After instructing his legal practitioners to apply for rescission, the applicant went to his rural home for 8 months without following up. Upon his return, his lawyers claimed they had been looking for him. New legal practitioners were appointed to rectify the errors of the previous lawyers. An oral application for condonation was made to deal with the delays before addressing the rescission application.
The application for rescission of the default judgment was dismissed with costs.
For a default judgment to be rescinded, the applicant must demonstrate: (1) reasonable diligence in prosecuting the application; (2) that there was no gross negligence on the part of both the legal practitioners and the client; and (3) a bona fide defence to the claim. Where an applicant displays lack of interest in prosecuting their own case by disappearing for 8 months without following up with their lawyers, and where no viable defence is shown to the underlying claim, rescission will not be granted even if the legal practitioners were also negligent.
The court observed that the applicant should have made follow-ups with his legal practitioners since he was not getting feedback from them, rather than going to his rural home for 8 months. The court noted that what both the applicant and his lawyers did rendered them culpable. The court also remarked that the matter was handled in a "very cavalier fashion" by the applicant's erstwhile legal practitioners, and that the new lawyers were attempting to rectify the many errors made by the previous lawyers.
This case illustrates the strict approach Zimbabwean courts take toward applications for rescission of default judgments where there is gross negligence by both legal practitioners and the party seeking rescission, and where no bona fide defence is demonstrated. It reinforces the principle that a party cannot simply rely on their lawyers' negligence but must show their own diligence in pursuing their matter. The case also demonstrates that even where condonation is granted to hear a matter in the interests of justice, this does not guarantee success on the merits of the application.