Zibusiso Moyo v Ngoni Hobodo and Others

The applicant instituted a civil claim in January 2019 seeking damages of USD 150,000 and ZAR 308,500 for unlawful arrest, detention, and physical harm sustained while in police custody, including allegations of a miscarriage while pregnant and substantial medical expenses. The case proceeded to pre-trial conference stage but stalled due to various factors including the COVID-19 pandemic. The matter was dismissed by the Registrar on 23 July 2022 for want of prosecution in terms of Practice Direction 1/22. The applicant only brought an application for reinstatement in December 2024, more than two years after dismissal. She attributed the delay to: (1) COVID-19 disruptions to court operations, (2) her poor health requiring medical treatment in South Africa, and (3) ongoing settlement negotiations with the respondents. The respondents opposed reinstatement, arguing unreasonable delay, that one named respondent had died, others had retired or left service, and that critical police documents may no longer be available due to three-year retention policies.

• Whether the applicant demonstrated good cause for reinstatement of a matter dismissed for want of prosecution under Rule 60 of the High Court Rules 2021
• Whether the applicant provided a reasonable explanation for the delay of over two years in seeking reinstatement
• Whether the delay caused prejudice to the respondents in their ability to defend the claim
• Whether the interests of justice favored reinstatement despite the delay

1. The application for reinstatement of the matter dismissed on 23 July 2022 is dismissed. 2. The applicant is ordered to pay the respondents' costs of suit on the ordinary scale.

In applications for reinstatement of matters dismissed for want of prosecution, an applicant must demonstrate good cause by showing: (1) the delay was not inordinate in the circumstances, (2) a reasonable and continuous explanation for the delay exists, (3) good prospects of success on the merits, and (4) that reinstatement would not cause undue prejudice to the respondent. A delay of over two years following dismissal, without continuous engagement with the court or the opposing party and without substantiating evidence of incapacitation, constitutes an inordinate and insufficiently explained delay that fails to establish good cause. Prejudice to a respondent that materially compromises their ability to present a defense—including death of witnesses, retirement or departure of key personnel, and potential loss of documentary evidence due to institutional retention policies—is sufficient to warrant refusal of reinstatement. The principle of finality in litigation prevails where an applicant has failed to demonstrate diligence in prosecuting their claim, even where the underlying claim is serious in nature.

The court acknowledged that the seriousness of the applicant's claim involving alleged unlawful arrest, detention, medical injury including a miscarriage is not in question. However, even important cases must be pursued in accordance with procedural rules, and courts are required to uphold both procedural discipline and substantive justice. The court expressed concern about the increasing trend of applicants seeking indulgence from courts for delays attributable to themselves or their legal representatives, noting that courts are being "bombarded with excuses for failure to act." The court also noted that while COVID-19 was a real impediment to litigation between 2020 and early 2022, this justification has limited temporal application and cannot explain inaction after mid-2022 when normal court operations resumed. The court observed that there was no medical affidavit or formal proof to substantiate the claim of incapacitation due to health issues, suggesting that more rigorous evidentiary standards apply even in circumstances where health is cited as a reason for delay.

This case reaffirms the strict approach Zimbabwean courts take to applications for reinstatement of dismissed matters, emphasizing that even serious claims involving alleged police misconduct and constitutional violations must be prosecuted with procedural diligence. The judgment reinforces the principle that COVID-19 disruptions have a limited temporal scope as an excuse for delay, particularly after courts resumed normal operations. It also demonstrates the court's concern about the growing trend of applications seeking indulgence for unexplained delays, and underscores that prejudice to respondents in their ability to defend—particularly state institutions with document retention policies and personnel turnover—is a material consideration that outweighs the substantive merits of a claim when delay is inordinate and unexplained. The case provides practical guidance on what constitutes sufficient explanation for delay in reinstatement applications under Rule 60 of the High Court Rules 2021 and Practice Direction 1/22.