Ndelema & Six Ors v Agro Innovations (HC 5268 of 2014) [2015] ZWHHC 342 (30 March 2015)

1 HH 342-15 HC 5268/14 DENNY NDELEMA AND SIX OTHERS versus AGRO INNOVATIONS HIGH COURT O ZIMBABWE MATANDA-MOYO J HARARE, 31 March 2015 Chamber Application MATANDA-MOYO J: This is a chamber application for default judgment for registration of an arbitral award. Before default judgment could be granted applicant must show that the respondent was served with the application, and that despite such service, respondent failed to file its notice of opposition. Under paragraph 2 of applicant’s founding affidavit the respondent’s address of service is put as “Katiyo Estate Box 344, Mutare.” The certificate of service certified that “at Agricultural and Rural development Authority, 3 McChlery Avenue, Eastlea.” The chamber application was served on Constance Denhere the receptionist who accepted service on behalf of the respondent. The applicants have not taken the court into their confidence to show how the application could be served at ARDA Offices. What is the connection between ARDA and the respondent. Rule 39 (2) (d) of this court’s rules provides for service on body corporate. It provides; “(2) subject to this order process other that process referred to in subrule (1) may be served upon a person in any of the following ways- (d) In the case of process to be served on a body corporate- (i) (ii) By delivery to a responsible person at the body corporate’s place of business or registered office; It is not possible to serve the process in terms of subparagraph (i) by delivery to a director or to the secretary or public officer of the body corporate.” In the case in casu the service was not done in terms of the rules and I am unable to find that such service was proper. In the result I am unable to grant the application in default of filing of a notice of opposition.