Devine Homes (Pvt) Ltd v Sheriff & Ors (HH 145 of 2004) [2004] ZWHHC 145 (1 June 2004)

Devine Homes (Pvt) Ltd v Sheriff & Ors (HH 145 of 2004) [2004] ZWHHC 145 (1 June 2004)

The Sheriff, when cited in his official capacity, is not required to file opposing papers but may file a report. The absence of opposing papers does not constitute default, and joint representation does not affect the right to legal representation. The application for default judgment fails.

Citation
[2004] ZWHHC 145
Parties
Applicant: Devine Homes (Pvt) Ltd; 1st Respondent: The Sheriff; 2nd Respondent: 2nd Respondent
Court
Harare High Court
Jurisdiction
Zimbabwe
Judgment Date
1 June 2004
Case Number
HH 145 of 2004
Procedural Posture
Civil / Application for Default Judgment
Outcome
application dismissed
Legal Topics
Default Judgment, Representation of State Officials, Sheriff's Duties
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Default Judgment Representation of State Officials Sheriff's Duties

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Devine Homes (Pvt) Ltd

Applicant

The Sheriff

1st Respondent

2nd Respondent

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil / Application for Default Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 1st respondent (the Sheriff) was in default for failure to file notice of opposition and opposing affidavit under Rule 232 of the High Court Rules
  2. 2 Whether the Sheriff, when cited in his substantive capacity, is obliged to file opposing papers instead of a report
  3. 3 Whether joint legal representation of the Sheriff and 2nd respondent affects the Sheriff's neutrality

Ratio Decidendi

The Sheriff, when cited in his official capacity, is not required to file opposing papers but may file a report. The absence of opposing papers does not constitute default, and joint representation does not affect the right to legal representation. The application for default judgment fails.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application for default judgment against the 2nd defendant is dismissed with costs.