The applicant sought condonation for the late noting of an appeal and an extension of time within which to note an appeal against a High Court judgment delivered on 5 October 2005. The applicant, initially acting as a self-actor, filed a notice of appeal on 18 November 2005, but did nothing to prosecute it. On 12 June 2008, the Registrar of the Supreme Court advised that the appeal had lapsed in terms of Rule 34(5) of the Rules of the Supreme Court. The respondents' legal practitioners wrote on 17 June 2008 requesting compliance with the High Court judgment. The applicant took no action for over two years until 16 September 2010 when her legal practitioners wrote to the Registrar. The application for condonation was filed on 17 November 2010, but due to non-compliance with Court Rules, was only set down for hearing on 26 November 2013. The applicant explained the delay by claiming she was unaware of the lapse, was consulting at the appeals office, and then had to care for her daughter who was diagnosed with cancer, requiring travel between Zimbabwe and South Africa in 2008 and 2009.
The application for condonation and extension of time was dismissed with costs.
In applications for condonation of late appeals, where there has been a flagrant breach of court rules, an inordinate delay (in this case almost nine years), an unsatisfactory or false explanation for the delay, and substantial prejudice to the opposing party, the cumulative effect of these factors is sufficient to render the application unworthy of consideration and condonation should be refused irrespective of the prospects of success on appeal. The court must balance the need to prevent injustice against the equally important policy of finality in litigation, and where an applicant has shown total disregard for court rules and procedures, the indulgence of condonation will be refused.
ZIYAMBI JA made observations about the proliferation of applications for condonation, rescission, and extensions of time in recent years, noting that courts are 'bombarded with excuses for failure to act' and that 'incompetence is becoming a growth industry.' The Court warned that petty disputes are being argued and re-argued until costs far exceed the capital amount in dispute. The Court reminded the legal profession of the maxim vigilantibus non dormientibus jura subveniunt (the law will help the vigilant but not the sluggard). These observations reflect judicial concern about the abuse of procedural remedies and the need for greater professional diligence.
This case reinforces the strict approach Zimbabwean courts take towards applications for condonation of late appeals, particularly where there has been inordinate delay, flagrant breach of court rules, and unsatisfactory explanations. It emphasizes that prospects of success are not decisive where other factors militate against granting condonation. The judgment serves as a warning to legal practitioners about the consequences of incompetence and disregard for procedural rules, and underscores the courts' commitment to finality in litigation. It applies the principle vigilantibus non dormientibus jura subveniunt - the law assists the vigilant, not the sluggard.