National Blankets Limited v Zimbabwe Textile Workers Union

The plaintiff (National Blankets Limited) instituted proceedings against the defendant (Zimbabwe Textile Workers Union) on 13 October 2010. Summons was served on 22 October 2010. When no appearance to defend was entered, the plaintiff obtained a default judgment on 25 November 2010 in terms of Rule 58. However, on 20 October 2010, NDOU J had issued a provisional order placing the defendant under provisional judicial management in Case No. HC 2171/10, which included a stay of all actions and proceedings against the company. Neither party brought this provisional order to the court's attention when the default judgment was sought and granted on 25 November 2010.

• Whether a default judgment granted in breach of a stay order should be rescinded
• Whether the court can rescind a judgment mero motu (of its own accord) under Rule 449
• Whether the judgment was erroneously sought and granted in terms of Rule 449(1)(a)
• Whether the judgment was granted as a result of a mistake common to the parties in terms of Rule 449(1)(c)

1. The default judgment granted on 25 November 2010 was rescinded. 2. No order as to costs.

A default judgment obtained in breach of a stay order issued in provisional judicial management proceedings is liable to be rescinded under Rule 449(1)(a) and (c) of the High Court Rules as being erroneously sought and granted, and as having been granted as a result of a mistake common to the parties. The court has power to rescind such a judgment mero motu (of its own accord) when the existence of a prior stay order was not brought to its attention by either party.

The court expressed its belief that the plaintiff likely did not know of the provisional order when seeking judgment, as it would have been obligated to bring that fact to the court's attention if it had known. The court also noted it would not want to believe the plaintiff deliberately concealed this information. The court observed that the order came about as a result of a mistake common to both the court and the plaintiff, suggesting the absence of bad faith on the plaintiff's part.

This case demonstrates the Zimbabwean High Court's power to rescind judgments of its own motion (mero motu) under Rule 449 when a judgment is erroneously granted or obtained through common mistake. It emphasizes the duty of parties to bring material facts, particularly the existence of stay orders in judicial management proceedings, to the court's attention. The case illustrates that where a company is under provisional judicial management with a stay of proceedings, any judgment obtained in violation of that stay will be rescinded. It also shows judicial willingness to correct errors where neither party brought critical information to the court's attention, without punishing either party with costs.