Supreme Court dismisses lawyer’s appeal

Fidelis Munyoro

Chief Court Reporter

THE Supreme Court has dismissed Harare lawyer Kevin Musimwa’s application for condonation and reinstatement of appeal.

The appeal sought to overturn a High Court ruling that found him liable for damages following a motor vehicle accident on 27 June 2008.

The collision left Mr Johnson Muchechesi, the respondent, with life-altering injuries and a permanent disability.

The High Court awarded Mr Muchechesi US$37 189 in compensation for medical expenses, loss of employment, and future care.

Musimwa argued that his delay in filing the appeal stemmed from a misunderstanding of the Supreme Court rules and his assumption that no costs were required since Mr Muchechesi was also unrepresented.

He claimed to have acted promptly after realising his error. Justice Bhunu, however, found the four-month delay substantial.

“While the court tends to be lenient with unrepresented litigants, the explanation for such a delay must still be reasonable,” said the judge.

Musimwa’s reasoning, though partly plausible, failed to justify the delay, the judge said.

Justice Bhunu then turned to the merits of the case and found Musimwa’s prospects of success on appeal to be negligible.

The High Court had relied on Mr Muchechesi’s evidence, supported by police documents, including a sketch diagram of the accident and a receipt confirming a US$20 deposit fine paid by Musimwa.

In contrast, Musimwa offered no corroborating evidence or alternative sketch to substantiate his version of events.

“The applicant’s (Musimwa) defence is a mere denial not backed by any evidence or supporting documents,” said Justice Bhunu.

Musimwa denied that paying the deposit fine constituted an admission of guilt, insisting that the police should have referred the matter to court.

The judge dismissed this argument, saying: “It is trite that an accused person charged with a road traffic offence can refuse to pay a fine and opt to go to court. The applicant does not claim he was coerced or forced to pay the fine.”

Justice Bhunu said Mr Muchechesi’s case was built on consistent testimony and credible evidence.

The High Court had also relied on the testimony of a medical expert to assess the damages, which were deemed fair and reasonable.

“The learned judge a quo (of lower court) cannot be faulted for finding the applicant liable for negligent driving,” Justice Bhunu said.