The respondent, a registered money lender under the Microfinance Act [Chapter 24:30], entered into a written loan agreement with the appellant for USD$900.00 to be repaid in three instalments. The appellant failed to repay the loan according to the terms. The respondent instituted legal proceedings seeking delivery of a motor vehicle which the appellant had ceded as security, or payment of USD$1,980.00. Summons were served at the appellant's home by affixing them to the outer principal black gate after an unsuccessful diligent search. The appellant failed to enter an appearance to defend and default judgment was granted. The appellant then applied for rescission of judgment and stay of execution, claiming he was unaware of the court case as he had travelled out of town and no one was at home when summons were served. He also alleged he had a bona fide defence based on allegedly usurious interest charged on the loan.
The appeal was dismissed with costs. The default judgment in favor of the respondent was upheld.
In an application for rescission of a default judgment under Order 30 of the Magistrates Court Rules, 2019, an applicant must satisfy two conjunctive requirements: (1) provide satisfactory reasons for the default in entering appearance to defend, supported by credible evidence; and (2) demonstrate a bona fide defence to the underlying claim. Where an applicant fails to provide supporting evidence for claimed reasons for default, contradicts himself in his pleadings, and does not establish any genuine defence to a claim based on clear written loan and cession agreements entered into without duress, the application for rescission must fail. A registered money lender under the Microfinance Act [Chapter 24:30] is legally authorized to charge interest rates in accordance with that legislation.
The court observed that the grounds of appeal contained grammatical and typographical errors and were winding in nature, though the meaning could be discerned with some effort. The court also noted that the allegation of usurious interest was made without any basis and appeared to be "just a claim for the sake of it" without proof of the alleged illegality. The court commented that the impression created by the appellant's contradictory statements and lack of supporting evidence was that the appellant willfully defaulted in filing his appearance to defend.
This case clarifies the application of Order 30 of the Magistrates Court Rules, 2019 regarding rescission of default judgments in Zimbabwe. It reinforces that the requirements of providing satisfactory reasons for default and demonstrating a bona fide defence are conjunctive and must both be satisfied. The case also demonstrates the courts' approach to applications for rescission where the applicant fails to provide supporting evidence for claims made and contradicts himself in pleadings. It affirms the validity of cession agreements as security for loans and the authority of registered microfinance institutions under the Microfinance Act [Chapter 24:30] to charge interest in accordance with law.