Nhowe and Another v Gondo and Another (221 of 2025) [2025] ZWHHC 221 (27 March 2025)

Nhowe and Another v Gondo and Another (221 of 2025) [2025] ZWHHC 221 (27 March 2025)

The applicants were in willful default by failing to file a plea despite proper service and reminders. Their explanation for default is unsatisfactory. They have no bona fide defence as the ownership of the property has been conclusively determined in favour of the first respondent by the Supreme Court. The application for rescission does not meet the requirements and is dismissed with costs on a punitive scale.

Citation
[2025] ZWHHC 221
Parties
Applicant: Ntombizodwa Nhowe; Applicant: Raymond Tafadzwa Nhowe; Respondent: Monica Gondo; Respondent: Gama and Partners Legal Practitioners
Court
Harare High Court
Jurisdiction
Zimbabwe
Judgment Date
27 March 2025
Case Number
221 of 2025
Procedural Posture
Application for Rescission of Default Judgment / Judgment on Opposed Application
Outcome
application dismissed
Legal Topics
Rescission of Judgment, Default Judgment, Eviction, Actio Rei Vindicatio
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Property Law Rescission of Judgment Default Judgment Eviction Actio Rei Vindicatio

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 3 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ntombizodwa Nhowe

Applicant

Raymond Tafadzwa Nhowe

Applicant

Monica Gondo

Respondent

Gama and Partners Legal Practitioners

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Rescission of Default Judgment / Judgment on Opposed Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants have shown good and sufficient cause for rescission of default judgment
  2. 2 Whether the application was properly brought under rule 27 of the High Court Rules, 2021
  3. 3 Whether the applicants were in default and if the default was willful

Ratio Decidendi

The applicants were in willful default by failing to file a plea despite proper service and reminders. Their explanation for default is unsatisfactory. They have no bona fide defence as the ownership of the property has been conclusively determined in favour of the first respondent by the Supreme Court. The application for rescission does not meet the requirements and is dismissed with costs on a punitive scale.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • Applicants shall bear the first respondent’s costs on the legal practitioner and client scale.