Ackrept Investments (Pvt) Ltd v Deputy Sheriff (HH 75 of 2004) [2004] ZWHHC 75 (23 March 2004)

Ackrept Investments (Pvt) Ltd v Deputy Sheriff (HH 75 of 2004) [2004] ZWHHC 75 (23 March 2004)

The applicant was in wilful default as the explanation for non-attendance was unconvincing, and no credible evidence was provided. The alleged defence of economic duress was found to be an afterthought and not supported by the facts. The application for rescission was dismissed.

Citation
[2004] ZWHHC 75
Parties
Applicant: Ackrept Investments (Pvt) Ltd; Respondent: The Deputy Sheriff
Court
Harare High Court
Jurisdiction
Zimbabwe
Judgment Date
23 March 2004
Case Number
HH 75 of 2004
Procedural Posture
Opposed Court Application / Application for Rescission of Default Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Rescission of Judgment, Default Judgment, Pre Trial Conference, Economic Duress
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Rescission of Judgment Default Judgment Pre Trial Conference Economic Duress

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ackrept Investments (Pvt) Ltd

Applicant

The Deputy Sheriff

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Opposed Court Application / Application for Rescission of Default Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant was in wilful default for non-attendance at the pre-trial conference
  2. 2 Whether the applicant has a good defence to warrant rescission of the default judgment

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant was in wilful default as the explanation for non-attendance was unconvincing, and no credible evidence was provided. The alleged defence of economic duress was found to be an afterthought and not supported by the facts. The application for rescission was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Application for rescission of default judgment is dismissed with costs