{"issue_text":"Whether applicants have provided satisfactory explanation for failing to file supplementary affidavit earlier","issue_type":"procedural","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Alleged retrieval from archives in December 2023, prior filing in HC 10094/11"}
{"issue_text":"Whether filing supplementary affidavit would cause undue prejudice to respondent","issue_type":"procedural","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Matter ongoing for thirteen years, heads of argument already filed"}
{"issue_text":"Whether exceptional circumstances exist to justify filing supplementary affidavit after answering affidavit","issue_type":"procedural","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Delay in filing, availability of documents"}
This summary was generated by AI. Use Zalari to read the full judgment.
background
Facts of the Case
Background
Applicants sought leave to file a supplementary affidavit in pending property dispute HC 3261/23, claiming they had newly discovered criminal records showing the late Wilson Madziva faced perjury charges. The records were allegedly located in archives after painstaking search. Third respondent opposed, arguing the information was always available and applicants failed to explain delay.
Read the full judgment, get AI analysis, and find related cases