Ndelema & Six Ors v Agro Innovations (HC 5268 of 2014) [2015] ZWHHC 342 (30 March 2015)
The application was not properly served on the respondent in accordance with Rule 39(2)(d), and therefore default judgment cannot be granted.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2015] ZWHHC 342
- Parties
- Applicant: Denny Ndelema and Six Others; Respondent: Agro Innovations
- Court
- Harare High Court
- Jurisdiction
- Zimbabwe
- Case Number
- HC 5268 of 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Chamber Application / Application for Default Judgment for Registration of Arbitral Award
- Outcome
- Application for default judgment refused
- Legal Topics
- Service of Process, Default Judgment, Arbitral Award Registration
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Denny Ndelema and Six Others
Applicant
Agro Innovations
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Chamber Application / Application for Default Judgment for Registration of Arbitral Award
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether service of the chamber application on the respondent was proper under the court rules
- 2 Whether default judgment for registration of arbitral award can be granted in absence of proper service
Ratio Decidendi
The application was not properly served on the respondent in accordance with Rule 39(2)(d), and therefore default judgment cannot be granted.
Court Disposition
Application for default judgment refused
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
1 HH 342-15 HC 5268/14 DENNY NDELEMA AND SIX OTHERS versus AGRO INNOVATIONS HIGH COURT O ZIMBABWE MATANDA-MOYO J HARARE, 31 March 2015 Chamber Application MATANDA-MOYO J: This is a chamber application for default judgment for registration of an arbitral award. Before default judgment could be granted applicant must show that the respondent was served with the application, and that despite such service, respondent failed to file its notice of opposition. Under paragraph 2 of applicant’s founding affidavit the respondent’s address of service is put as “Katiyo Estate Box 344, Mutare.” The certificate of service certified that “at Agricultural and Rural development Authority, 3 McChlery Avenue, Eastlea.” The chamber application was served on Constance Denhere the receptionist who accepted service on behalf of the respondent. The applicants have not taken the court into their confidence to show how the application could be served at ARDA Offices. What is the connection between ARDA and the respondent. Rule 39 (2) (d) of this court’s rules provides for service on body corporate. It provides; “(2) subject to this order process other that process referred to in subrule (1) may be served upon a person in any of the following ways- (d) In the case of process to be served on a body corporate- (i) (ii) By delivery to a responsible person at the body corporate’s place of business or registered office; It is not possible to serve the process in terms of subparagraph (i) by delivery to a director or to the secretary or public officer of the body corporate.” In the case in casu the service was not done in terms of the rules and I am unable to find that such service was proper. In the result I am unable to grant the application in default of filing of a notice of opposition.