Sakadza v Charumbira (706 of 2022) [2022] ZWHHC 706 (12 October 2022)

Sakadza v Charumbira (706 of 2022) [2022] ZWHHC 706 (12 October 2022)

The applicant failed to establish any error justifying rescission under rule 29(1)(a), did not challenge the main divorce order, and did not provide factual support for non-service; therefore, the application for rescission of the enforcement order was dismissed.

Citation
[2022] ZWHHC 706
Parties
Applicant: Phillip Sakadza; Respondent: Jenifer Charumbira
Court
Harare High Court
Jurisdiction
Zimbabwe
Judgment Date
12 October 2022
Case Number
706 of 2022
Procedural Posture
Contested Court Application / Judgment on Application for Rescission of Default Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs on the scale of legal practitioner and client.
Legal Topics
Rescission of Judgment, Divorce, Eviction, Default Judgment
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Family Law Rescission of Judgment Divorce Eviction Default Judgment

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Phillip Sakadza

Applicant

Jenifer Charumbira

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Contested Court Application / Judgment on Application for Rescission of Default Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant established grounds for rescission of the default judgment under rule 29(1)(a)
  2. 2 Whether the enforcement order (eviction) can be rescinded without attacking the main divorce order

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to establish any error justifying rescission under rule 29(1)(a), did not challenge the main divorce order, and did not provide factual support for non-service; therefore, the application for rescission of the enforcement order was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs on the scale of legal practitioner and client.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs on the scale of legal practitioner and client.