Online Reporter
Ivan Zhakata
Herald Correspondent
The Supreme Court has ruled in favour of Sayles Corporation (Pvt) Ltd, reinstating its legal challenge over ownership of the prime Lot 4 Reitfontein property in Harare, in a long-running dispute with Couchgrass (Pvt) Ltd.
In a judgment delivered on May 22, 2025, Justices George Chiweshe, Susan Mavangira, and Joseph Musakwa set aside a previous High Court decision that had dismissed Sayles’ applications for rescission of judgment and joinder of parties for want of prosecution.
“The court a quo was convinced from the outset that the appellant was on a wild goose chase… It concluded therefore that there were no prospects of success,” said Justice Chiweshe.
“That view was fundamentally flawed.”
The battle began after Sayles purchased the contested Reitfontein property from the estate of the late June Searson in 2018 and received legal transfer.
However, Couchgrass also claimed ownership, citing an earlier transaction involving the deceased’s estate, leading to a web of litigation, default judgments, and legal wrangling involving multiple parties — including the Searson brothers, who had been appointed executors of the estate.
Couchgrass had previously secured a High Court ruling declaring it the lawful owner. That judgment, confirmed by the Supreme Court in a separate matter involving a third party (Samalyn Investments), became the linchpin of Couchgrass’s legal strategy to block Sayles.
But the Supreme Court has now ruled that Sayles, which was not a party to the earlier litigation, cannot be bound by those decisions.
“Clearly, the appellant’s claim introduces a new party not involved in the previous judgment,” reads the judgment.
“It cannot be said that the appellant’s claim is between the same parties or their privies as before. For that reason, the appellant’s claim cannot be defeated on account of [res judicata].”
The High Court had previously dismissed Sayles’ applications due to procedural delays in serving court papers to the Searson brothers, who had relocated to Australia.
However, the Supreme Court found that Sayles had made legitimate attempts to serve the brothers by edictal citation and was in fact successful before the lower court heard the matter.
“A party that expends reasonable time and energy to execute an indulgence granted to it by a court cannot be adjudged not to have had a plausible explanation,” reads the judgment.
The ruling showed that the High Court had exercised its discretion improperly by applying “the wrong principle and wrong facts,” and by failing to holistically consider the delay, explanation, and prospects of success — key factors in a dismissal application.
Crucially, Sayles has accused Couchgrass and the estate executors of engaging in fraud and unlawfully acquiring the property in breach of tax laws — claims which the Supreme Court now says warrant full judicial scrutiny.
“The appellant’s applications have prospects of success,” the court ruled. The balance of convenience favours the appellant as it seeks to have the dispute resolved on the merits rather than on technicalities.”
