Senwork Timbers (Pvt) Ltd. v NRZ (HC 2874 of 2014) [2015] ZWBHC 171 (28 July 2015)
The applicant failed to provide an acceptable explanation for the delay and did not articulate a clear defence on the merits, warranting dismissal of the application.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2015] ZWBHC 171
- Parties
- Applicant: Senwork Timbers (Pvt) Ltd; Respondent: National Railways of Zimbabwe
- Court
- Bulawayo High Court
- Jurisdiction
- Zimbabwe
- Case Number
- HC 2874 of 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Opposed Court Application / Application for Condonation of Late Filing of Rescission Application
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs
- Legal Topics
- Condonation, Rescission of Judgment, Late Filing
- 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
Senwork Timbers (Pvt) Ltd
Applicant
National Railways of Zimbabwe
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Opposed Court Application / Application for Condonation of Late Filing of Rescission Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant has provided sufficient explanation for the delay in filing the application for rescission of judgment
- 2 Whether the applicant has a bona fide defence on the merits
Ratio Decidendi
The applicant failed to provide an acceptable explanation for the delay and did not articulate a clear defence on the merits, warranting dismissal of the application.
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs
Orders
- application for condonation is dismissed with costs
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
1 HB 171-15 HC 2874/14 SENWORK TIMBERS (PVT) LTD Versus NATIONAL RAILWAYS OF ZIMBABWE HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE KAMOCHA J BULAWAYO 28 JULY 2015 Opposed Court Application Mrs J. Magosvongwe for applicant Advocate P. Dube for respondent KAMOCHA J: This is an application wherein the applicant seeks condonation of the late filing of an application for the rescission of a judgment which it became aware of on 29 September 2014. The applicant has been represented by its present legal practitioners since October 2014 but applicant only filed this application for condonation on 5 December, 20145. There is no acceptable explanation why it was unable to act timeously. There is no explanation why the application was not filed in October 2014. Applicant gave lack of funds as the reason for failure to act timeously. The applicant does not explain how it lacked funds when it was expected to act and how it eventually managed to source funds to file the application for condonation belatedly. The applicant’s legal representative conceded that there were gaps in the explanation of the financial constraints faced by the applicant. She, however, urged the court to afford the parties a chance to deal with the matter on the merits. The applicant also failed to clearly articulate its defence on the merit. For instance it sought an advance payment for the 720 railway timber sleepers and was paid the sum requested. HB 171-15 HC 2874/14 All that applicant was able to supply were 45 sleepers out of the 720. Out of the 45 sleepers supplied 3 were defective. The applicant has no clear defence at all. In the result the court ordered that the application be and is hereby dismissed with costs. Danziger & Partners, applicant’s legal practitioners James, Moyo-Majwabu & Nyoni, respondent’s legal practitioners