The appellant, a New Zealand resident, owned immovable property (Flat no. 4 Resdale, 56 Selous Avenue, Harare). She was represented by her brother Ignatius Masamba under a general power of attorney granted in 2011. In 2011, through Ignatius, she sued the respondent for $1,960.00 comprising claims for nuisance ($150), professional negligence ($1,500), mental distress/physical inconvenience/time ($300), and transport/stationery/photocopying ($10). The summons and particulars of claim were unclear and incoherent, failing to disclose the cause of action or whether claims were based on contract or delict. The trial magistrate dismissed the appellant's claim with each party to pay their own costs. Ignatius appealed despite the appellant instructing him to withdraw the appeal. A special power of attorney to litigate was only granted on 12 March 2013, effective from 1 March 2013, after the judgment of the court a quo.
The appeal was dismissed with costs on the attorney-client scale against the appellant.
A general power of attorney, even one authorizing general management of property including rental management and maintenance, does not authorize an agent to institute and prosecute litigation. The institution and prosecution of legal proceedings is an important step that may involve the principal in great expense and requires a specific or special power of attorney. A special power of attorney granted after judgment does not have retrospective effect unless expressly stated. Once a principal instructs an agent to withdraw an appeal, the agent no longer has mandate to proceed with it. A notice of appeal must comply with procedural rules by concisely stating grounds of appeal in numbered paragraphs directed at the substantive order, not merely restating arguments or evidence. An amendment cannot cure a notice of appeal that is a nullity.
The court observed that based on the defective summons and particulars of claim which failed to properly disclose the cause of action, "there was virtually no case to try." The court also noted that the agent was "clearly on a frolic of his own for his own ingratiation" in pursuing the appeal contrary to the principal's instructions. The court commented that "this is a case which should not have seen the corridors of this court or should at least not have been persisted with especially after the principal had instructed the agent to withdraw the appeal."
This case is significant in Zimbabwean civil procedure for clarifying the scope and limitations of general powers of attorney in litigation contexts. It reinforces the principle that a general power of attorney, even for property management, does not inherently authorize an agent to institute and prosecute legal proceedings. The case emphasizes that litigation requires a specific or special power of attorney. It also reinforces procedural requirements for valid notices of appeal under the Magistrates Court Rules, and affirms that an agent cannot continue proceedings contrary to the principal's express instructions. The case serves as a warning about the consequences of pursuing meritless appeals in defiance of proper procedures and instructions, justifying costs on a punitive scale.