News / National
High court reopens Sakala lottery feud
2 hrs ago | Views
The High Court has breathed new life into a bruising family feud over a multimillion-dollar lottery fortune after overturning a default judgment that had handed victory to the estate of the late Agnes Sakala. Justice Joel Mambara ruled that the matter must be heard on its merits, citing the risk of injustice if the beneficiaries were denied their day in court.
The dispute dates back to 2019, when Agnes Sakala won a major lottery jackpot and distributed part of her winnings to relatives in the form of cash, houses, and vehicles. Among the beneficiaries were Heather Magodyo and brothers Prosper and Henry Sakala, who insist the transfers were "outright gifts." Agnes later changed her position, claiming the assets were loans that should be repaid, sparking a lawsuit that has since divided the family.
In October 2024, the beneficiaries failed to attend a crucial High Court hearing after their lawyers abandoned the case or failed to inform them of proceedings. This resulted in a default judgment in favour of Oliver Masomera, the executor dative of Agnes's estate, who sought to reclaim the contested assets.
Justice Mambara, however, rescinded that ruling, stressing that the applicants had not wilfully defaulted but were victims of legal mishandling. "Denying the applicants the opportunity to be heard could result in an injustice. There is nothing in the applicants' conduct to suggest that they freely took the decision to refrain from appearing," he said.
The judge dismissed arguments that the applicants had been negligent, ruling that their explanation of legal representation breakdowns was "adequate." He added: "A court is naturally reluctant to let a judgment stand against someone who insists they have a valid defence and who was not heard due to a mishap. The justice of the case clearly favours letting this matter be heard on the merits."
At the centre of the dispute is whether the transfers made by Agnes were genuine gifts or loans—a determination that could set a precedent on how Zimbabwean courts interpret family financial transactions arising from sudden wealth, such as lottery winnings.
The applicants filed for rescission within a month of discovering the default judgment and secured a stay of execution, preventing the immediate transfer of assets. The case will now proceed to full trial, with substantial assets—including properties, cash, and vehicles—hanging in the balance.
The ruling underscores the judiciary's willingness to reopen cases where mishandled representation threatens to deny litigants the right to a fair hearing, even in emotionally charged family disputes involving vast fortunes.
The dispute dates back to 2019, when Agnes Sakala won a major lottery jackpot and distributed part of her winnings to relatives in the form of cash, houses, and vehicles. Among the beneficiaries were Heather Magodyo and brothers Prosper and Henry Sakala, who insist the transfers were "outright gifts." Agnes later changed her position, claiming the assets were loans that should be repaid, sparking a lawsuit that has since divided the family.
In October 2024, the beneficiaries failed to attend a crucial High Court hearing after their lawyers abandoned the case or failed to inform them of proceedings. This resulted in a default judgment in favour of Oliver Masomera, the executor dative of Agnes's estate, who sought to reclaim the contested assets.
Justice Mambara, however, rescinded that ruling, stressing that the applicants had not wilfully defaulted but were victims of legal mishandling. "Denying the applicants the opportunity to be heard could result in an injustice. There is nothing in the applicants' conduct to suggest that they freely took the decision to refrain from appearing," he said.
The judge dismissed arguments that the applicants had been negligent, ruling that their explanation of legal representation breakdowns was "adequate." He added: "A court is naturally reluctant to let a judgment stand against someone who insists they have a valid defence and who was not heard due to a mishap. The justice of the case clearly favours letting this matter be heard on the merits."
At the centre of the dispute is whether the transfers made by Agnes were genuine gifts or loans—a determination that could set a precedent on how Zimbabwean courts interpret family financial transactions arising from sudden wealth, such as lottery winnings.
The applicants filed for rescission within a month of discovering the default judgment and secured a stay of execution, preventing the immediate transfer of assets. The case will now proceed to full trial, with substantial assets—including properties, cash, and vehicles—hanging in the balance.
The ruling underscores the judiciary's willingness to reopen cases where mishandled representation threatens to deny litigants the right to a fair hearing, even in emotionally charged family disputes involving vast fortunes.
Source - NewZimbabwe
