The applicant sold stand number 4060 Khumalo Township to the respondent for Z$120,000,000.00 (revalued) via a written agreement of sale. The respondent paid only Z$70,000,000.00 in instalments by February 2007, leaving a balance of Z$50,000,000.00. The applicant purported to cancel the agreement by giving the respondent 14 days' notice to remedy the breach via a letter dated 15 February 2007. The respondent's legal practitioners advised that the cancellation was illegal and tendered the balance of the purchase price, which the applicant declined. The respondent obtained a provisional order on 10 April 2007 interdicting the applicant from selling or transferring the property. A default judgment was granted on 31 May 2011 ordering the applicant to transfer the property to the respondent. The applicant only became aware of the default judgment on 25 April 2012 and filed an application for condonation of late filing on 28 June 2012, seeking to rescind the default judgment.
The application for condonation of late filing of the application for rescission of default judgment was dismissed with costs.
Where an applicant seeks condonation for late filing of an application for rescission of default judgment, good and sufficient cause must be shown not only for the delay in making the application for rescission but also for any delay in seeking condonation itself. A period of 14 days between becoming aware of the need to file and actually filing cannot be considered "immediate" or "as soon as possible," and failure to provide any explanation for such delay is fatal to the application. Under section 8(1)(b) of the Contractual Penalties Act, an instalment sale of land (defined as a sale where payment is required in three or more instalments and ownership does not transfer until payment is completed) cannot be terminated for breach unless the seller gives the purchaser written notice with at least 30 days to remedy the breach; a 14-day notice is incompetent and any purported cancellation based on such notice is invalid.
The court made strong obiter observations criticizing the practice of law by lay persons who do not appreciate the legal pitfalls involved, stating they "venture through a legal minefield which, at the end of it, leaves them legally battered and bruised." The court also commented on the applicant's lack of vigilance in failing to follow up on her case for 5 years despite knowing it was pending in court and having heads of argument filed. The court further observed that it is "inconvenient to the court to be unnecessarily saddled with frivolous applications whose fate is patently doomed from the outset" and emphasized that "there should be finality to litigation." The court also noted the irony that the applicant attempted to lift a caveat and use the property as security for a loan while knowing the matter regarding the caveat was still pending in court, describing this as speaking "volumes about applicant's attitude to safeguard her interests."
This case is significant in Zimbabwean jurisprudence for: (1) reinforcing the strict approach courts take to condonation applications and the requirement to file applications as soon as possible with acceptable explanations for any delay; (2) emphasizing the two-hurdle test in Viking Woodwork (Pvt) Ltd v Blue Bells Enterprises (Pvt) Ltd requiring explanation for both delay in filing the main application and delay in seeking condonation; (3) clarifying the application of the Contractual Penalties Act to instalment sales of land and the mandatory 30-day notice period for breach; (4) warning against lay persons drafting legal documents without proper legal knowledge; and (5) affirming the principle that the law helps the vigilant and not the sluggard in litigation matters.