Mupamombe Housing Co-operative Society Limited v Mupamombe Phase 4 Beneficiaries Association and Others

The applicant sought rescission of a final order granted by consent on 9 August 2025 in case HCC169/25 per Muzofa J. The order was obtained by the 1st respondent (Mupamombe Phase 4 Beneficiaries Association) and was reflected as being granted in the absence of other parties who were shown as in default. The applicant (Mupamombe Housing Co-operative Society Limited) alleged it was an interested party that was deliberately excluded from the proceedings. The dispute centered on ownership of residential stands in Kadoma known as Mupamombe Stands. Multiple previous court judgments indicated ongoing litigation between various factions claiming ownership of these stands, all stemming from what appeared to be a common umbrella body. The applicant alleged that the respondents had a pattern of colluding to institute legal proceedings as ostensibly opposed parties, deliberately excluding the applicant, and then obtaining consent orders while knowing they belonged to the same camp. The applicant contended it was the mother and only legal body, with the respondents being splinter groups. The 1st respondent opposed, arguing the applicant was registered in 2019, after the stands had been allocated to the 2nd respondent (Mupamombe Housing Project), and that the applicant was not an interested party.

• Whether the applicant qualified as an interested party affected by the order in case HCC169/25
• Whether the order in case HCC169/25 was erroneously sought and erroneously granted in the absence of the applicant as an interested party
• Whether rescission of judgment should be granted under Rule 29(1) of the High Court Rules 2021
• Whether the applicant should be joined to the main application HCC169/25
• Whether Rule 27 (rescission of default judgment) or Rule 29(1) was the appropriate procedural mechanism

1. Application for rescission of judgment granted. 2. Order of the High Court in case HCCC169/25 dated 9 August 2025 per Muzofa J rescinded. 3. Applicant joined as 3rd Respondent in the main matter under case HCCC169/25. 4. 1st Respondent to amend its Urgent Chamber Application and Founding Affidavit in HCCC169/25 within 7 days. 5. 1st Respondent to serve amended documents on the Applicant within the period specified. 6. Applicant to file Notice of Opposition within 10 days of service. 7. Each party to pay its own costs.

An order or judgment will be rescinded under Rule 29(1)(a) of the High Court Rules 2021 where: (1) the applicant is an interested party whose rights are affected by the order; (2) the interested party was excluded from the proceedings; (3) the order adversely affects that party's interests; and (4) the order was therefore erroneously sought and erroneously granted in their absence. Where numerous previous court judgments demonstrate a party's ongoing interest in the subject matter of litigation (in this case, ownership of residential stands), that party qualifies as an interested party that cannot be excluded from subsequent related proceedings. A court has inherent power under Rule 29(1) to rescind its own judgment where it would not have granted the order had it known of the existence and interest of an affected party. Joinder is appropriately granted to enable an interested party to defend its interests in the main proceedings following successful rescission.

The court observed that both parties were to blame for perpetuating endless expensive futile litigation by failing to address the core dispute over ownership of the stands. The court noted a pattern of collusive litigation where parties purporting to be opposed would obtain consent orders while deliberately excluding genuinely interested parties, describing this as "cat and mouse games" that must come to an end. The court emphasized that parties have an obligation to instigate litigation that addresses the core of conflicts to bring finality, rather than positioning themselves for "firefighting or damage control" through reactive applications. The court stated that one party cannot make it a habit to commence litigation while excluding others whose interests are known, and that the excluded party should take a proactive stance to address the real issues once and for all. The court noted that in the absence of final determination of ownership, parties continue on futile pursuit of counter litigation on peripheral issues, with several judgments indicating persistent litigation but none touching on the crucial central issues.

This case illustrates the application of Rule 29(1) of the High Court Rules 2021 in Zimbabwe, which empowers courts to rescind orders erroneously obtained in the absence of interested parties. It reinforces the principle that parties with a material interest in proceedings must be joined and cannot be deliberately excluded. The judgment also addresses the problematic practice of collusive litigation where parties purporting to be in opposition obtain consent orders while deliberately excluding genuinely interested parties. The case emphasizes the court's role in ensuring procedural fairness and protecting the rights of affected parties. It also highlights judicial concern about persistent satellite litigation that fails to address core disputes, encouraging parties to bring finality to protracted conflicts through substantive determination of underlying issues rather than peripheral procedural skirmishes.