HARARE – A Harare businessman has lost his latest bid to challenge a divorce settlement after the Supreme Court ruled that he could no longer escape the consequences of his lawyers’ repeated procedural blunders, bringing an end to a six-month legal saga marked by multiple defective applications.

A Supreme Court bench of appeal comprising Justices Nicholas Mathonsi, Lavender Makoni and George Chiweshe dismissed an application by Go Gas owner, Michael Dardagan for condonation and an extension of time to appeal against a High Court divorce ruling, finding that both he and his legal practitioners had shown a persistent disregard for court rules and orders.

He was represented by Rino G. Zhuwarara.

“There is a limit beyond which a litigant cannot escape the consequences of his or her legal practitioner’s lack of diligence or tardiness,” Mathonsi, who wrote the judgement with the other judges concurring, said.

“The applicant should be penalised for that negligence and/or lack of appreciation of the Rules of Court.”

The dispute stems from a divorce order granted on August 1, 2025, which awarded Dardagan’s former wife, Vera Dardagan, the couple’s Mount Pleasant matrimonial home, while Dardagan retained control of a gas business operated through Go Gas Trading (Pvt) Ltd.

Unhappy with the distribution of assets, Dardagan sought to appeal. However, his initial appeal was deemed abandoned after his lawyers failed to serve the notice of appeal in accordance with Supreme Court rules.

What followed was a string of failed attempts to revive the appeal.

Court records show that at least five separate applications seeking condonation were either defective or struck off the roll before the Supreme Court eventually granted Dardagan a final opportunity to file and serve an appeal within five days in January this year.

But despite receiving that indulgence, his legal team again failed to serve the notice of appeal as directed.

The judges said the applicant’s legal practitioners attempted to justify the failure by claiming they believed uploading documents onto the electronic court system amounted to service.

“The reason rendered by the applicant for failure to comply with both r 44 (2) and the Court order is a red herring,” the ruling said.

The judges went further, accusing the legal team of attempting to mislead the court.

“For him to then claim having done so under the mistaken belief that it constituted service on the registrar of the court a quo is to insult the intelligence of the court,” Mathonsi said.

The court found that the lawyers had done nothing beyond filing the notice of appeal and had failed to comply with both the Rules of Court and a direct court order.

Mathonsi said the matter had been handled “in a cavalier and grossly negligent manner” and described the applicant’s attempts to appeal as “a game of cat and mouse.”

While acknowledging that the mistakes were largely attributable to the lawyers, the judge said clients are generally bound by the conduct of their chosen legal representatives.

“Even though the applicant has followed the questionable performance of his legal practitioners… he has studiously maintained an unwavering trust in them. To that extent therefore, the loss should lie where it falls,” he said.

The court also invoked the principle that litigation must eventually come to an end.

“The time has come to stop the applicant in his tracks,” the bench ruled.

The application was dismissed with costs.