Mukangara v TelOne (CIV A 465 of 2014) [2015] ZWHHC 237 (10 March 2015)

Mukangara v TelOne (CIV A 465 of 2014) [2015] ZWHHC 237 (10 March 2015)

The appellant was in wilful default as the explanation for not entering appearance to defend was improbable and not supported by credible evidence; therefore, the magistrate was correct in dismissing the application for rescission of default judgment.

Citation
[2015] ZWHHC 237
Parties
Appellant: Patrick Chengetai Mukangara; Respondent: Tel-One
Court
Harare High Court
Jurisdiction
Zimbabwe
Judgment Date
10 March 2015
Case Number
CIV A 465 of 2014
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Dismissal of Application for Rescission of Default Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Rescission of Default Judgment, Wilful Default, Service of Summons
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Rescission of Default Judgment Wilful Default Service of Summons

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Patrick Chengetai Mukangara

Appellant

Tel-One

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Dismissal of Application for Rescission of Default Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant was in wilful default in failing to enter appearance to defend
  2. 2 Whether the magistrate erred in dismissing the application for rescission of default judgment
  3. 3 Whether the respondent’s claim had prescribed

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant was in wilful default as the explanation for not entering appearance to defend was improbable and not supported by credible evidence; therefore, the magistrate was correct in dismissing the application for rescission of default judgment.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs.