Procedural Law-viz final order re variation of order.
Procedural Law-viz final order re setting aside of final order.
Procedural Law-viz final order re correcting final order.
Procedural Law-viz final order re set aside, vary, or correct a judgment.
Procedural Law-viz final order re rescission of judgment re Rule 449.
Procedural Law-viz rules of court re High Court Rules iro Rule 449(1)(a).
Procedural Law-viz rules of court re High Court Rules iro Rule 449(1)(c).
Procedural Law-viz final order re variation of a judgment iro Rule 449.
Procedural Law-viz final order re correction of a judgment iro Rule 449.
Procedural Law-viz High Court Rules re Rule 449 iro rescission of an order.
Procedural Law-viz High Court Rules re Rule 449 iro rescission, variation or correction of an order.
Procedural Law-viz final order re variation of final order iro material non-disclosure.
Procedural Law-viz final order re setting aside of judgment iro material non-disclosure.
Procedural Law-viz final order re correcting a judgment iro material non-disclosures.
Procedural Law-viz final order re rescission of judgment iro material non-disclosures.
Procedural Law-viz final order re Rule 449 iro judgment granted as a result of gross irregularities.
Procedural Law-viz final order re Rule 449 iro order granted as a result of a mistake common to all the parties.
This
is an application to set aside, vary, or correct the judgments under case
numbers HC 1577/04; HC 2733/04; HC 913/03; and HC 4007/04.
It
is the applicant's contention that these orders should be interfered with in a
suitable and appropriate manner as provided for by Order 49 Rule 449. Basically,
this Rule provides for a rescission, variation, or correction of a judgment or
order, where such judgment was granted as a result of gross irregularities or
mistake common to all the parties.
Counsel
for the first respondent has argued that there was no mistake common to all the
parties. In other words, it is his contention that if there were any mistake,
it was not to all the parties but to the applicant alone.
There
have been many applications involving these parties, and it is clear that in
case number HC 913/03 the full circumstances were not disclosed. The reason for
non-disclosure, in my view, was to conceal certain issues whose disclosure
would have resulted in the court deciding otherwise.
It
is the court's duty to accord all litigants the opportunity to present their
cases fully before them in order for them to arrive at a justifiable
conclusion. The court will not allow a situation where one party behaves in a manner
that will deprive the court to properly determine a matter in accordance with
the dictates of justice. As stated above, there has been a series of
applications involving the same parties', it is, therefore, only proper for
case number HC 913/03 to be heard on the merits.
Accordingly, the application succeeds with costs
at an ordinary scale.
Order 49 Rule 449(1)(a) and (c)
CHEDA J: This
is an application to set aside, vary or correct the judgments under case numbers HC 1577/04; HC 2733/04; HC
913/03 and HC 4007/04.
It is applicant's
contention that these orders should be interfered with in a suitable and
appropriate manner as provided for order 49 rule 449. Basically this rule provides for a rescission,
variation or correction of a judgment or order where such judgment was granted
as a result of gross irregularities or mistake common to all parties.
Mr Marondedze for first respondent has
argued that there was no mistake common to all parties. In other words it is his contention that if
there was any mistake it was not to all parties but to applicant alone. There have been many applications involving
these parties and it is clear that in case number HC 913/03 the full
circumstances were not disclosed. The
reason for non-disclosure in my view was to conceal certain issues whose
disclosure would have resulted in the court deciding otherwise.
It is the court's
duty to accord all litigants the opportunity to present their cases fully
before them in order for them to arrive at a justifiable conclusion. The court will not allow a situation where
one party behaves in a manner that will deprive the court to properly determine
a matter in accordance with the dictates of justice.
As stated above,
there has been a series of applications involving the same parties, it is,
therefore, only proper for case number HC 913/03 to be heard on the merits.
Accordingly the
application succeeds with costs at an ordinary scale.
Messrs. Cheda and
Partners, applicant's legal practitioners
Messrs. Marondedze
and Partners, 1st respondent's legal
practitioners
