Unifreight Properties v Simply Plastics (HC 8095 of 2014) [2015] ZWHHC 316 (30 March 2015)

Unifreight Properties v Simply Plastics (HC 8095 of 2014) [2015] ZWHHC 316 (30 March 2015)

The applicant failed to rebut the presumption of knowledge of the judgment under r 63(3) and did not seek condonation for late filing. The application for rescission was therefore improperly before the court and must be dismissed.

Citation
[2015] ZWHHC 316
Parties
Applicant: Unifreight Properties; Respondent: Simply Plastics
Court
Harare High Court
Jurisdiction
Zimbabwe
Judgment Date
30 March 2015
Case Number
HC 8095 of 2014
Procedural Posture
Application for Rescission of Default Judgment / Ruling on Preliminary Objections
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Rescission of Judgment, Default Judgment, Condonation, High Court Rules
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Rescission of Judgment Default Judgment Condonation High Court Rules

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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Unifreight Properties

Applicant

Simply Plastics

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Rescission of Default Judgment / Ruling on Preliminary Objections

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application for rescission was filed within the time limits prescribed by the rules
  2. 2 Whether the applicant rebutted the presumption of knowledge of judgment under r 63(3)
  3. 3 Whether condonation was required for late filing

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to rebut the presumption of knowledge of the judgment under r 63(3) and did not seek condonation for late filing. The application for rescission was therefore improperly before the court and must be dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The application for rescission is dismissed with costs.