Judgment No. SC 21/2018 Civil Appeal No. SC 89/16 judgment. Her explanation for this further delay is that she was conferring with her current legal practitioners. That explanation is rather unsatisfactory but considering her indigent state and the importance of this case to her and her family, it is difficult to dismiss her explanation off-hand as being unreasonable. I take that view because her current legal practitioners are representing her pro amico out of their generosity and benevolence of their good heartedness. In the normal run of things I consider that it is difficult to find a legal practitioner willing to offer his services for free within a short space of time. The applicant presents a picture of an elderly unsophisticated widow, desperately fighting to save her home with paltry resources and scanty knowledge of the legal intricacies. Despite those impediments she did not sit back doing nothing about this case. She fought tooth and nail in search of justice in circumstances where she could not afford legal representation. For that reason there is need to give her the benefit of a reasonable doubt so as to consider and ventilate her prospects of success on appeal on the merits. Prospects of success on Appeal The plaintiff relied on the evidence of four witnesses in the court a quo, comprising Martin Mataranyika, Edmore Samson, Priscilla Marume and Ravheti Kaseke. Martin Mataranyika was the main witness for the plaintiff. It was his testimony that he was a business consultant with a company called Millennial Insurance Company. The first 4