Milton Gardens Assoc. & Anor v Mvembe & Ors (HC 1236 of 2015; HH 94 of 2016) [2016] ZWHHC 94 (3 February 2016)

Milton Gardens Assoc. & Anor v Mvembe & Ors (HC 1236 of 2015; HH 94 of 2016) [2016] ZWHHC 94 (3 February 2016)

The applicants failed to bring the application for rescission within a reasonable time and did not show a direct and substantial interest in the subject matter, as their rights were only against Max, who had no title to Newark. The delay was unreasonable, and the applicants have no locus standi to seek rescission...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2016] ZWHHC 94
Parties
Applicant: The Milton Gardens Association; Applicant: Syril Mupanguri Mupanguri; Respondent: Tecla Mvembe; Respondent: Champion Constructors (Pvt) Limited; Respondent: The Registrar of Deeds, Harare; Respondent: The Surveyor General
Court
Harare High Court
Jurisdiction
Zimbabwe
Judgment Date
3 February 2016
Case Number
HC 1236 of 2015 ; HH 94 of 2016
Procedural Posture
Application for Rescission of Judgment / Judgment on Opposed Application
Outcome
application dismissed
Legal Topics
Rescission of Judgment, Locus Standi, Assignment of Rights, Default Judgment, Condonation of Delay
Source Language
english
Civil Procedure Property Law Rescission of Judgment Locus Standi Assignment of Rights Default Judgment Condonation of Delay

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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Milton Gardens Association

Applicant

Syril Mupanguri Mupanguri

Applicant

Tecla Mvembe

Respondent

Champion Constructors (Pvt) Limited

Respondent

The Registrar of Deeds, Harare

Respondent

The Surveyor General

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Rescission of Judgment / Judgment on Opposed Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants are entitled to rescission of the default judgment under rule 449
  2. 2 Whether the applicants have a direct and substantial interest in the subject matter to justify rescission
  3. 3 Whether the delay in bringing the application for rescission is fatal to the application

Ratio Decidendi

The applicants failed to bring the application for rescission within a reasonable time and did not show a direct and substantial interest in the subject matter, as their rights were only against Max, who had no title to Newark. The delay was unreasonable, and the applicants have no locus standi to seek rescission under rule 449.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs on an attorney client scale.