On 25 February 2014, Luxor (respondent) issued summons and declaration against Wector Enterprises (appellant) claiming cancellation of a lease agreement dated 31 January 2005, payment of rental arrears of US$11,127.55, eviction from Shop 1 Luxor House, holding over damages of US$1,000 per month, and costs. The summons were served on 11 March 2013. The appellant failed to enter appearance to defend. On 4 April 2013, Luxor applied for and obtained default judgment on 11 April 2013. A Writ of Execution and Ejectment was served on 22 April 2013, movable property was attached and removed, and the appellants were evicted on 29 April 2013. On 7 May 2013, the appellants applied for rescission of the default judgment under Order 49 r 449(1)(a), alleging the judgment was erroneously granted as the declaration disclosed no cause of action and lacked particulars of breach and computation of the amount claimed. The application was opposed by Luxor through an affidavit by Simon Moyo of Knight Frank estate agents. The appellants challenged Moyo's authority and claimed they had reached an agreement with Luxor to settle rental arrears. The High Court dismissed the rescission application.
The appeal was dismissed with costs.
Rule 449(1)(a) of the High Court Rules is a discretionary remedy that requires proof that the judgment was erroneously sought or granted. An error sufficient to invoke Rule 449 must be established by the applicant; it is not sufficient to merely allege defects in pleadings that could have been raised through proper procedural channels such as exception or request for further particulars. A summons that clearly states the existence of a lease agreement and the quantum of arrears outstanding discloses a sufficient cause of action even if not drafted in the best terms. Where a company is represented by legal practitioners in litigation, an affidavit by an agent who can attest to the facts is properly before the court when filed in accordance with Rule 233, without requiring a separate resolution authorizing the deponent. The court exercises discretion under Rule 449, and an appellate court will not interfere with that discretion absent improper exercise thereof.
The Court observed in passing that the appellants' admission that rental arrears existed undermined their position that there was no cause of action. The Court also noted that if Mr Stirling had actual authority to instruct withdrawal of proceedings, it would have been simple to withdraw the action since his letter was dated just two days after service of summons, yet no withdrawal was effected. ZIYAMBI JA commented that Rule 449 has been invoked in various circumstances including clerical errors by the court, where entry of appearance was not in the file at time of default judgment, and where the judge was unaware of a relevant fact such as a clause in an acknowledgement of debt. The judgment emphasized that parties cannot "blow hot and cold" by serving papers on legal practitioners thereby accepting representation, then later denying that the party is properly represented.
This case clarifies the proper application of Order 49 r 449(1)(a) of the High Court Rules concerning rescission of judgments erroneously sought or granted. It establishes that this rule provides an expeditious remedy for correcting obvious errors but requires proof of the error and does not require establishing good and sufficient cause as under Rule 63. The case also provides guidance on when a summons and declaration are sufficient to disclose a cause of action in lease enforcement matters, and confirms that a company's letting agent may depose to affidavits on factual matters within their knowledge without requiring a director's resolution. It reinforces the principle that parties cannot ignore court proceedings and then later claim procedural defects, when the proper course would be to enter appearance and raise objections through exceptions or requests for further particulars.