Sachiti & Anor v Mukaronda (HC 42 of 2021; HMT 38 of 2021) [2021] ZWMTHC 38 (21 June 2021)
The application for rescission fails because the judgment was by consent, not by default, and the applicants used the wrong procedural rule. No grounds under Rule 449 were established, and the proper recourse for setting aside a consent order was not followed.
- Citation
- [2021] ZWMTHC 38
- Parties
- Applicant: Timothy Sachiti; Applicant: Alice Sachiti; Respondent: Gift Mukaronda
- Court
- Mutare High Court
- Jurisdiction
- Zimbabwe
- Judgment Date
- 21 June 2021
- Case Number
- HC 42 of 2021 ; HMT 38 of 2021
- Procedural Posture
- Application for Rescission of Judgment / Opposed Application, Judgment
- Outcome
- Application dismissed with costs
- Legal Topics
- Rescission of Judgment, Consent Orders, High Court Rules
- Source Language
- English
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Timothy Sachiti
Applicant
Alice Sachiti
Applicant
Gift Mukaronda
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Application for Rescission of Judgment / Opposed Application, Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicants are entitled to rescission of a consent judgment under Order 49 Rule 449 of the High Court Rules, 1971
- 2 Whether the correct procedural rule was used for setting aside a consent judgment
Ratio Decidendi
The application for rescission fails because the judgment was by consent, not by default, and the applicants used the wrong procedural rule. No grounds under Rule 449 were established, and the proper recourse for setting aside a consent order was not followed.
Court Disposition
Application dismissed with costs
Orders
- Application for rescission of judgment is dismissed with costs
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment