Lottery windfall tears Zimbabwean family apart as Sakala’s case returns to court
The case highlights the risks that come with sudden windfalls and informal family arrangements. Without clear agreements, the line between gifts and loans can blur, sparking years of legal battles.
Zimbabwe.- The Harare High Court has revived a heated dispute in the Sakala family over a multimillion-dollar lottery jackpot, ruling that the case should be heard on merits rather than decided by default. Presiding judge, Justice Joel Mambara, set aside a default judgment against three members of the Sakala family, saying it would be unfair to deny them a chance to defend themselves.
The dispute dates back to 2019, when the late Agnes Sakala won a major lottery prize, described in court documents as a “multimillion-dollar” jackpot. After her win, Agnes shared money, houses and cars with relatives, including Heather Magodyo and her brothers Prosper and Henry Sakala.
While the family members thought these were outright gifts, given out of Agnes’s generosity, she later insisted the transfers were loans, demanding repayment or the return of the assets. The fight continued after Agnes’ death, with Oliver Masomera, the executor of her estate, suing to reclaim the property.
The case first went to court in 2024. But when a hearing was set for October 21, the Sakala family’s lawyers failed to appear. Heather’s lawyer had left her firm without transferring the case file, while Prosper and Henry, who were minors when the lawsuit began, said they never received updates from their legal team.
At the time, the court issued a default judgment in favour of the estate, effectively handing over the disputed assets. The Sakalas later learned of the ruling and quickly applied for rescission, filing their challenge in November 2024 within the one-month deadline set by Rule 27(1) of the High Court rules.
In his latest decision, Justice Mambara sided with the applicants, finding their explanation reasonable. He said: “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 stressed that the real question, whether Agnes’s transfers were gifts or loans, was too important to dismiss without a full hearing. The judge ruled: “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 judge noted. “The justice of the case clearly favours letting this matter be heard on the merits.”
The ruling means the case will now go to trial. No date has yet been set, but a stay of execution remains in place, preventing the estate from seizing the assets until the court’s final verdict.
The Sakala case highlights the risks that come with sudden windfalls and informal family arrangements. Without clear agreements, the line between gifts and loans can blur, sparking years of legal battles. It also reinforces the High Court’s position that procedural errors should not shut people out of justice.
For the Sakala family, the trial could bring closure or deepen divisions as the full story of the lottery fortune is laid out in court.
