Tetrad Investment Bank Limited v Ilex Investments (Private) Limited and Nacmar Trading (Private) Limited

The matter was set down for a Pre-Trial Conference on 17 June 2014. The plaintiff appeared but the defendants were in default. The defendants were represented by Messrs Takaidza and Mubata whose address of service was given as c/o Messrs Kwenda and Associates of 9th Floor Hurudza House, Corner Park Street/N.Mandela Avenue, Harare. The Deputy Sheriff attempted to serve a notice of set down for the Pre-Trial Conference on Kwenda and Associates at the provided address, but they refused to accept service on behalf of the defendants' legal practitioners. No change of address had been filed with the court by the defendants.

• Whether service at a chosen address of service constitutes proper service where the person at that address refuses to accept service
• Whether defendants were in wilful default justifying striking out of the defence and entry of default judgment

1. Defendants' defence is hereby struck off. 2. Matter is referred to the unopposed roll for quantification.

Where a party has designated an address for service of process, service effected at that address constitutes proper service in terms of the High Court Rules, regardless of whether the person at that address refuses to accept the documents. A party cannot avoid the consequences of proper service by having their agent refuse acceptance at their chosen address of service.

The court noted that before striking off a defence and entering default judgment, it must first be satisfied that the defendants were aware that the matter was set down and, despite such knowledge, decided not to appear. The court also observed that there had been no change of address filed with the court by the defendants, reinforcing that the address where service was attempted remained the valid address of service.

This case clarifies an important principle of civil procedure in Zimbabwean law regarding service of process. It establishes that service at a party's chosen address of service constitutes valid service even where the person at that address refuses to accept the documents. This prevents parties from avoiding service by instructing their agents to refuse acceptance of documents at their stated address of service.