SC 76-14 CHIMUNDA v ZIMUTO & ZIMUTO

FLORENCE     CHIMUNDA

v

    (1) ARNOLD     ZIMUTO     (2)     LOVENESS     ZIMUTO

 

SUPREME COURT OF ZIMBABWE

HARARE, NOVEMBER 26, 2013 & SEPTEMBER 30, 2014

F M Katsande, for the applicant

I Maja, for the respondents

Before ZIYAMBI JA: In chambers in terms of r 5 of the Rules of the Supreme Court, 1964.  

This is an application for condonation of the late noting of an appeal and an extension of time within which to note an appeal.

The judgment sought to be appealed against was delivered by the High Court on 5 October 2005.  The application was first filed on 17 November 2010 but, being non-compliant with the Rules of this Court, was the subject of much correspondence between the Registrar of this Court and the applicant’s legal practitioners, with the result that it was only finally set down for hearing on the 26 November 2013.

The applicant averred in her founding affidavit which is dated 13 November 2010, as follows:

“On 18 November 2005 the applicant, then a self-actor filed a notice of appeal in the Supreme Court.  Nothing was apparently done to prosecute the appeal and nearly three years later, on 12 June 2008, the Registrar of the Supreme Court wrote to the appellant advising the appeal was deemed to have lapsed in terms of r 34(5) of the Rules of the Supreme Court.”

The communication from the Registrar therein referred to was followed by a letter dated 17 June 2008, to Katsande & Partners then the applicant’s legal practitioners, from the respondent’s legal practitioners, requesting compliance by the applicant with the High Court judgment within fourteen days from 12 June 2008 in view of the lapse of the appeal.

There followed a long silence of two years and three months.  Then on 16 September 2010, the matter assumed new life.  A letter was written to the Registrar of the High Court by Katsande & Partners.  The Registrar was accused of failing to respond to a letter by the applicant requesting a transcript of the record for the purposes of applying to the Supreme Court for an extension of time within which to appeal. 

2014

File: