DISTRIBUTED BY VERITAS TRUST Tel: [263] [4] 794478 Fax & Messages [263] [4] 793592 E-mail: veritas@mango.zw Veritas makes every effort to ensure the provision of reliable information, but cannot take legal responsibility for information supplied. Judgment 29/18 7 inordinate and the explanation for the delay unreasonable, is a factual finding . SuchNo. a finding Civil Appeal No. SC 524/14 does not qualify as a point of law unless it is grossly unreasonable, that is, unless it is a finding that no reasonable court faced with the same facts would have made. No allegation of gross unreasonableness has been made nor is any apparent on the record. Accordingly, this ground of appeal, not being on a point of law, is invalid. [8] As to the second ground of appeal, it is vague and embarrassing, to say the least. The appellant has not indicated in this ground of appeal what point of law is to be determined on appeal. A finding that there are no prospects of success on appeal was made by the court a quo. Simply to allege a ‘misdirection in law’ by the court without alleging the nature of the misdirection does not advise this Court of the point of law on which its decision is required. The second ground of appeal is also invalid in that it does not disclose a point of law. [9] In any event, condonation is an indulgence granted at the discretion of the court of first instance and is not a right obtainable on request. In an application for condonation, a court considers, among other things, the length of the delay, the reasonableness of the explanation for it, the prospects of success, and the need for finality in litigation. Here, the delay was found to be inordinate, the explanation proffered for the delay unreasonable and the prospects of success non-existent. [10] Where a discretion has been exercised and a decision arrived at by a court of first instance the principles enunciated in Barros and Anor vs Chimphonda8 are applicable. They were stated by GUBBAY CJ as follows: 7 Muzuva v United Bottlers (Pvt) Ltd 1994 (1) ZLR217 (SC); Vimbai Mbisva v Rainbow Tourism rop Limited T/A Ranbow Hotel & Towers SC 32/09; Leopard Rock Hotel Company (Pvt) Ltd v Van Beek 2000 (1) ZLR 251 (S) at 256 B-C; Chinyange v Jaggers Wholesalers SC 24/03 8 Supra at para [6] 4