REPORTABLE (16)
Judgment
No. SC 19/06
Civil Application No.
34/06
MAKO PROPERTIES
AND CONSTRUCTION (PRIVATE) LIMITED v
(1) JACOBUS
ADRIAN BOTHA (2) THE REGISTRAR OF DEEDS
SUPREME COURT OF
ZIMBABWE
HARARE, MAY 11 &
JUNE 20, 2006
A Rubaya, for
the applicant
Ms J Wood, for
the first respondent
No appearance for the
second respondent
Before:
CHEDA JA, In Chambers, in terms of r 31 of the Supreme Court
Rules
This is an
application for condonation for the late noting of an appeal.
The first respondent
was the registered owner of two stands, nos. 281 and 236, both of
Prospect, Waterfalls, Harare. The two stands
were transferred into
the applicants name on 2 and 3 December 2003 respectively.
Subsequent to that,
the first respondent obtained an order from the High Court in which
it was ordered that the transfers be reversed
and the applicant was
ordered to pay the costs on a legal practitioner and client scale.
The applicant now wishes to appeal against
this order, but is out of
time.
In De
Kuszaba-Dabrowski et Uxor v Steel, N.O. 1966 RLR 60, BEADLE CJ
set out the broad principles to be taken into account in considering
an application for condonation
of the late noting of an appeal.
Some of these are
a) the extent of the delay;
b) the reasonableness of the explanation for the delay;
c) whether the litigant
himself is responsible for the delay;
d) the prospects of
success on appeal should the application be granted; and
e) the possible
prejudice to the respondent should the application be granted.
In this case, the judgment of the High Court was passed on 1 July
2005. No action was taken by the applicant.
On 30 January
2006 the applicant received a letter from the first respondent's
legal practitioners, indicating that they intended
to apply for the
cancellation of the transfers. This was seven months from the date
of judgment.
In attempting to
explain the reason for the delay, the applicant says it was agreed
after judgment that the judgment was unfair,
as it had the effect of
enriching the first respondent.
No appeal was noted
against the judgment. The applicant says the parties agreed that
the status quo ante would be maintained. The applicant
claims to have been surprised when the first respondent wanted to
apply for cancellation of
the transfers.
It is surprising that
the applicant would have expected to retain the property against the
judgment of the High Court. In any
case, the first respondent's
legal practitioners deny that there was ever such an agreement.
The applicant based
its argument on a letter in which it was proposed that a meeting be
held to discuss the matter. The meeting
never took place.
It is clear that the
applicants explanation is not reasonable and is in fact false.
On the prospects of
success, the Judge who dealt with the matter analysed the facts in
detail before he decided on the matter.
The facts of this
case are that the first respondent had lived with a woman for fifteen
years, but they never got married. It
was this woman who visited
the first respondent with a Mr Marimba, and they fraudulently
got him to sign a power of attorney.
He was at an old peoples
home and sickly. The first respondent says he was told that it was
documents for horticultural purposes
that he was signing.
Mr Marimba had no instructions at all from the first respondent,
and even after disposing of the property
he never accounted to the
first respondent for the proceeds. Instead, part of the proceeds
was used to purchase one property, which
was then registered in the
joint names of the first respondent and the woman he was living with.
The woman then became a joint
owner of property with the first
respondent, but without his knowledge or consent.
It was further
established that the properties were transferred, despite the fact
that the first respondent had since withdrawn
his so-called mandate
on the special power of attorney.
In the circumstances,
the decision of the High Court cannot be faulted and there are
therefore no prospects of success on appeal.
It is the first
respondent who will be greatly prejudiced if this application were to
succeed.
I am satisfied that
the application for leave to appeal out of time is yet another
attempt by the applicant to hold onto property
which was fraudulently
obtained from the first respondent.
The application is
therefore dismissed with costs.
Mudambanuki &
Associates, applicant's legal practitioners
Byron Venturas &
Partners, first respondent's legal practitioners