Lawyers' repeated blunders sink businessman's Supreme Court divorce appeal

A Harare businessman has lost his latest attempt to challenge a divorce settlement after the Supreme Court dismissed his application for condonation and extension of time to appeal, citing repeated procedural failures by his legal team.

The ruling brings to an end a six-month legal battle in which Go Gas owner Michael Dardagan made multiple unsuccessful attempts to revive an appeal against a High Court divorce order.

A Supreme Court bench comprising Justices Nicholas Mathonsi, Lavender Makoni and George Chiweshe found that both Dardagan and his lawyers had consistently failed to comply with court rules and prior directives.

"There is a limit beyond which a litigant cannot escape the consequences of his or her legal practitioner's lack of diligence or tardiness," Justice Mathonsi said in the judgment, which was concurred with by the panel.

The dispute arose from a divorce order issued on August 1, 2025, which awarded the couple's Mount Pleasant matrimonial home to Dardagan's former wife, Vera Dardagan, while he retained control of the family's gas business interests through Go Gas Trading (Pvt) Ltd.

Dissatisfied with the outcome, Dardagan sought to appeal, but his initial effort was deemed abandoned after his legal practitioners failed to properly serve the notice of appeal in line with Supreme Court rules.

Subsequent attempts to revive the appeal also failed, with at least five applications for condonation struck off or ruled defective by the court.

Although the court later granted a final opportunity for the appeal to be properly filed and served within five days, the legal team again failed to comply.

The judges rejected the explanation that uploading documents onto the electronic court system constituted valid service.

"The reason rendered by the applicant for failure to comply… is a red herring," the court said, adding that the argument "insults the intelligence of the court."

Justice Mathonsi further criticised the handling of the matter as "cavalier and grossly negligent," describing the repeated applications as a "game of cat and mouse."

While acknowledging that the failures were primarily attributable to legal practitioners, the court emphasised that litigants remain bound by the conduct of their chosen lawyers.

"The loss should lie where it falls," the judgment stated.

The court also underscored the principle that litigation must eventually come to an end, ruling that the matter had reached its conclusion.

"The time has come to stop the applicant in his tracks," the bench said, dismissing the application with costs.