This case clarifies important principles regarding civil procedure in Zimbabwe, particularly regarding the improper use of the unopposed roll when a matter remains contested. It demonstrates that procedural irregularities, even where the substantive relief granted may accord with what was sought, can still warrant rescission of judgment. The case reinforces the importance of proper procedure in counter-applications and the requirement for court authorization before hearing counter-applications separately from main applications under Rule 229A. It also illustrates the court's approach to costs in rescission applications where success may be academic in nature.