Online Reporter
Fidelis Munyoro
Chief Court Reporter
THE High Court has rescinded a default judgment that paved the way for the eviction of two mining operators from their operations at Gilnokie Farm, Goromonzi.
The court ruled that questions surrounding service of court papers must be properly ventilated before the dispute is finally determined.
Justice Joel Mambara set aside the judgment granted on March 3, 2026, in case number HCH 14/26 and granted Tongesai Mathew Madondo and Patrick Dafi five days to enter an appearance to defend the proceedings.
The judge also ordered that costs be in the cause. The ruling follows an opposed application for rescission in which Madondo and Dafi argued that they had never been properly served with summons and only learnt of the court order when the Sheriff of Zimbabwe arrived to execute an eviction.
According to the record, the summons were allegedly served on one Herbert Dzapasi, described as a security officer at the mine.
The applicants disputed knowing Dzapasi or having any connection with him.
Justice Mambara said the circumstances surrounding service raised a serious question, particularly because the plaintiff’s own declaration identified the applicants by name and placed them at Gilnokie Farm.
“The complaint goes to service itself,” Justice Mambara said, stressing that the summons had not been personally served on either applicant.
The judge said the issue could not simply be brushed aside in a case which had culminated in eviction.
The ruling came after Makonas Mining Syndicate raised three preliminary objections against the application — lack of locus standi, mootness and dirty hands.
The objections ultimately fell away after counsel for the mining syndicate abandoned them following engagement with the court.
Justice Mambara said Madondo and Dafi clearly had a direct and substantial interest in the matter because they were the very parties against whom the default judgment had been entered.
The court also found that the applicants had acted bona fide after becoming aware of the judgment during the eviction process.
Their subsequent application, which also sought leave to defend the original proceedings, demonstrated that they were not litigants who had simply ignored the court process, the judge found.
“The chronology in the record supports the applicants’ position that they moved after learning of the order during the eviction process,” Justice Mambara said.
The court further found that the applicants had demonstrated potentially meritorious issues requiring determination at trial.
Among them was whether service on Dzapasi constituted proper service, whether the Sheriff had been given adequate directions despite the applicants allegedly being known and locatable, and what weight should ultimately be attached to mining documentation and a report by the Provincial Mining Director.
Justice Mambara said those questions raised “plainly triable issues” and should not be shut out through technical objections.
The court consequently ordered that the March 3 default judgment be rescinded and set aside, with Madondo and Dafi required to file their appearance to defend within five days.
The judgment reopens the underlying mining dispute, which now returns to the contested litigation stage rather than being determined by the earlier default order.
The matter was heard on July 29 and August 5, 2026, before Justice Mambara in the High Court in Harare.
