Zimbabwe Banking Corporation v Madondo (Civil Application 35 of 2008; SC 17 of 2008) [2008] ZWSC 17 (27 August 2008)
The delay was minimal and resulted from an error by legal advisors; the applicant should be allowed to contest the issue of interest charged, and opposing the application was unjustified.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2008] ZWSC 17
- Parties
- Applicant: Zimbabwe Banking Corporation; Respondent: Cecil Madondo
- Court
- Supreme Court of Zimbabwe
- Jurisdiction
- Zimbabwe
- Case Number
- Civil Application 35 of 2008 ; SC 17 of 2008
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Application / Application for Condonation of Delay in Noting Appeal
- Outcome
- application for condonation granted
- Legal Topics
- Condonation of Delay, Appeals, Discretion of Court
- 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
Zimbabwe Banking Corporation
Applicant
Cecil Madondo
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Application for Condonation of Delay in Noting Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant should be granted condonation for a one-day delay in noting an appeal
Ratio Decidendi
The delay was minimal and resulted from an error by legal advisors; the applicant should be allowed to contest the issue of interest charged, and opposing the application was unjustified.
Court Disposition
application for condonation granted
Orders
- Leave to note an appeal out of time is granted.
- Each party will bear its own costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
DISTRIBUTABLE (10) Judgment No. SC 17/08 Civil Application No. 35/08 ZIMBABWE BANKING CORPORATION v CECIL MADONDO SUPREME COURT OF ZIMBABWE HARARE, APRIL 2 & AUGUST 28, 2008 J C Andersen SC, for the applicant F Mutamangira, for the respondent Before CHEDA JA: In Chambers, in terms of r 34 of the Supreme Court Rules. This is an application for an order allowing the applicant condonation of one day’s delay in noting an appeal. The application is opposed by the respondent. The applicant’s case is that the delay of one day was a result of an error made by its legal advisors on computing the time within which to appeal. SC 17/08 However, once the error was noticed and appropriate action taken the application for condonation was filed on 22 February. On the merits, it is clear that the amount of interest charged is an arguable amount which requires that evidence be led to establish certain aspects of the matter. The respondent rightly concedes that the Court has a discretion in such a matter. I am satisfied that the period of delay, resulting from an error, is not unduly long in this case, and that the applicant should be afforded an opportunity to contest the issue of the interest charged by the respondent. The applicant was at fault because of the error by its legal advisors and the respondent should in turn have appreciated the issue raised by the applicant concerning interest. Opposing the application was therefore unjustified in my view. I am reluctant to grant costs to either party in the circumstances. I therefore order as follows - 1. Leave to note an appeal out of time is hereby granted. SC 17/08 2. Each party will bear its own costs. Gill, Godlonton & Gerrans, applicant’s legal practitioners Mutamangira, Maja & Associates, respondent’s legal practitioners