Tevason Investments (Private) Limited t/a Freshpro v Jenpas Investments (Private) Limited t/a Prycmart Supermarket and AMR Mahdy

The plaintiff, Tevason Investments (Private) Limited trading as Freshpro, instituted proceedings against the defendants, Jenpas Investments (Private) Limited trading as Prycmart Supermarket and AMR Mahdy. A pre-trial conference was scheduled. The defendants were served with notice to attend the pre-trial conference hearing approximately 12 days prior to the scheduled date. The defendants failed to appear at the scheduled hearing time, with no appearance even 31 minutes after the scheduled time, and provided no explanation for their absence.

• Whether the defendants' non-attendance at a pre-trial conference hearing, without explanation and despite proper service, justifies granting default judgment
• Whether the court should strike out the defendants' defence based on their failure to attend the pre-trial conference

The defendants' defence was struck out and default judgment was granted in favour of the plaintiff as prayed for in the summons.

Where a defendant has been properly served with notice of a pre-trial conference and fails to attend without any cogent explanation, the court is justified in striking out the defence and granting default judgment. Courts will not accommodate casual litigants or tolerate conduct that demonstrates either a lack of seriousness toward proceedings or an attempt to delay the finalization of matters.

The court observed that it does not have "the zeal or will to accommodate casual litigants," expressing a general principle about the court's intolerance for lack of diligence in litigation. The court also commented that the defendants' approach was either indicative of not taking the proceedings seriously or a determination to delay the matter, though this observation was not strictly necessary for the determination of whether to grant default judgment.

This case demonstrates the Zimbabwean courts' approach to enforcing procedural compliance and their intolerance for dilatory tactics in civil litigation. It emphasizes the importance of attending scheduled court proceedings and the serious consequences of non-attendance, including the striking out of defences and the granting of default judgment. The case reinforces that litigants must take court proceedings seriously and that unexplained non-compliance with procedural requirements will not be tolerated.