Pavari v Chirova and 2 Others (612 of 2023) [2023] ZWHHC 511 (26 October 2023)

Pavari v Chirova and 2 Others (612 of 2023) [2023] ZWHHC 511 (26 October 2023)

The applicant was aware of the provisional order and failed to file a notice of opposition to its confirmation or discharge. His default was wilful, and the order was not erroneously granted in his absence. The application for rescission was therefore dismissed with costs.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] ZWHHC 511
Parties
Applicant: Never Pavari; 1st Respondent: Prudence Chirova; 2nd Respondent: Delatfin Civil Engineering (Pvt) Ltd; 3rd Respondent: Felix Munyaradzi
Court
Harare High Court
Jurisdiction
Zimbabwe
Judgment Date
26 October 2023
Case Number
612 of 2023
Procedural Posture
Opposed Application / Ruling on Application for Rescission of Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Rescission of Judgment, Default Judgment, Wilful Default, Service of Process
Source Language
english
Civil Procedure Rescission of Judgment Default Judgment Wilful Default Service of Process

Source-derived case record

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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Never Pavari

Applicant

Prudence Chirova

1st Respondent

Delatfin Civil Engineering (Pvt) Ltd

2nd Respondent

Felix Munyaradzi

3rd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Opposed Application / Ruling on Application for Rescission of Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant was entitled to rescission of the confirmed provisional order under Rule 29(1)(a) of the High Court Rules, 2021
  2. 2 Whether the default judgment was erroneously sought and granted in the absence of service upon the applicant

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant was aware of the provisional order and failed to file a notice of opposition to its confirmation or discharge. His default was wilful, and the order was not erroneously granted in his absence. The application for rescission was therefore dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The application for rescission is dismissed with costs.