Kudzanai Patrick Kujenga and Mayfair Catering Services v Parks and Wildlife Management Authority and The Sheriff of Zimbabwe

The first applicant was cited as defendant in HC 4195/21 as "Kudzanai Patrick Kujenga trading as Mayfair Lodges and Restaurants." Default judgment was granted on 26 January 2022 declaring that the applicants were not entitled to occupy Le Rhone Site, Kyle Recreational Park, Masvingo, ordering their ejectment and awarding holding over damages of USD$42.00 per day. A writ of ejectment was issued and served on 8 April 2022, with ejectment scheduled for 12 April 2022. The applicants filed this urgent application on 11 April 2022 seeking a stay of execution pending determination of their application for rescission of judgment (HC 2214/22). The first applicant contended that he was merely the Managing Director of Mayfair Children's Services (Pvt) Ltd, and the second applicant (a division of that company) was the actual party to the lease agreement with the first respondent. The applicants claimed they were not aware of service of the summons and declaration in the main case.

• Whether the matter was urgent
• Whether the second applicant had locus standi to institute the application
• Whether the first applicant had authority to depose to the affidavit on behalf of the second applicant without a resolution
• Whether the court should exercise its inherent authority to stay execution of the default judgment pending the rescission application
• Whether real and substantial justice demanded a stay of execution

The provisional order for stay of execution was granted in terms of the draft order.

The binding legal principles established are: (1) In exercising its inherent authority to control its own process, a court can stay, suspend or set aside execution where real and substantial justice demands it, to prevent an injustice that would be occasioned by allowing execution to proceed; (2) Where execution of a default judgment would cause irreparable prejudice to an applicant who has a pending application for rescission of that judgment, and the applicant demonstrates prospects of success in the rescission application, real and substantial justice demands that execution be stayed; (3) A firm, including a business carried on by a body corporate or a division thereof, may sue in its own name under Rule 11(2); (4) Where a Managing Director of an entity declares he is authorized to represent it, the onus is on the person challenging such authority to adduce evidence to the contrary; (5) A party cannot question the legal status of an entity it contracted with when that entity approaches the court to vindicate its rights under the contract.

The court made obiter observations on the merits of the underlying case, noting that the main claim appeared to be premised on a false cause since the first respondent knew the applicants were at the property pursuant to a lease agreement. The court also observed that in the context of rescission of default judgment, the question is not merely whether service was proper but whether, having knowledge of service, the applicant deliberately took the decision to refrain from defending with full appreciation of the consequences. The court noted that while there is a presumption of regularity of service ex facie the Sheriff's return, this presumption is rebuttable. The court indicated that the debate about whether there was a reasonable explanation for the default would be resolved at the hearing of the rescission application, but on the papers the assertion that the summons was not brought to the first applicant's attention raised questions deserving consideration.

This case is significant in Zimbabwean jurisprudence for clarifying the court's inherent authority to stay execution of judgments pending rescission applications where real and substantial justice demands it. It confirms the test from Mupini v Makoni regarding when courts will interfere with execution processes. The judgment also addresses important procedural issues regarding locus standi of business divisions, authority of managing directors to represent companies without formal resolutions, and the assessment of urgency in ejectment matters. It demonstrates the court's willingness to look beyond technicalities to prevent irreparable prejudice where there are genuine issues to be determined in pending rescission applications.