A Harare man has won a fresh chance to challenge a US$292,250 rental income claim brought by his former wife after the High Court ruled that he should not be punished for an alleged administrative failure by his lawyers.
Patrick Sagandira is being sued by his former wife, Doreen Sagandira, née Kaso, over rental income from Stand 2473 CBD in Rusape, which they jointly own.
Doreen is claiming US$292,250, representing what she says is her 50 percent share of rentals allegedly collected by Patrick from the property.
A default judgment had previously been entered against Patrick after he failed to defend the claim. He subsequently approached the High Court seeking condonation for the late filing of his application to rescind the judgment and have the matter reopened.
Justice Philipa Phillips granted his application, finding that the dispute between the former spouses should be determined on its merits rather than allowed to turn on procedural technicalities.
Patrick blamed an “administrative lapse” at his lawyers’ firm, saying the legal practitioner handling his matter had left the firm, causing the case to fall through the cracks.
Doreen opposed the application, arguing that Patrick had been properly served through his lawyers and had failed to provide an adequate explanation for his failure to act.
She also argued that she had been deprived of the benefits of the jointly owned Rusape property for 35 months despite being entitled to half of it.
But Phillips said the circumstances did not justify allowing Patrick to lose his case without the underlying rental dispute being properly heard.
“Justice should be based on the substance of the dispute rather than procedural technicalities,” the judge said.
She added: “Grabbing a judgment based on a technicality similarly brings no true justice.”
The judge said the parties’ matrimonial history and joint ownership of the property made it particularly important for the rental dispute to be fully ventilated.
“The parties to this application were married to each other and the dispute related to the rentals, their calculation of the rentals and the respondent’s entitlement need to be ventilated properly to arrive at a fair and equitable position,” Phillips said.
The court also accepted the explanation from Patrick’s former lawyers, who took responsibility for the administrative failure.
“The law firm has taken some blame for the position that the applicant finds itself,” Phillips said.
She rejected the argument that Patrick should bear the consequences of his lawyers’ failure, saying: “I do not believe that this case falls within one of those cases of serious and exceptional circumstances warranting the client to suffer for something their erstwhile lawyer did or did not do.”
Patrick was granted condonation for the late filing and his application under case number HCHF 2946/25 was reinstated, allowing him to pursue his bid to rescind the default judgment.
Each party was ordered to bear its own costs.
The ruling gives Patrick another opportunity to challenge the claim and ensures that the fight over the disputed rental income is heard on its merits.
