The dispute dates back to 2019<\/strong>, when the late Agnes Sakala <\/strong>won a major lottery prize, described in court documents as a \u201cmultimillion-dollar\u201d jackpot. After her win, Agnes shared money, houses and cars with relatives, including Heather Magodyo<\/strong> and her brothers Prosper<\/strong> and Henry Sakala<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n While the family members thought these were outright gifts, given out of Agnes\u2019s generosity, she later insisted the transfers were loans, demanding repayment or the return of the assets. The fight continued after Agnes\u2019 death, with Oliver Masomera<\/strong>, the executor of her estate, suing to reclaim the property.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The case first went to court in 2024<\/strong>. But when a hearing was set for October 21<\/strong>, the Sakala family\u2019s lawyers failed to appear. Heather\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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<\/strong> within the one-month deadline set by Rule 27(1)<\/strong> of the High Court rules.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In his latest decision, Justice Mambara sided with the applicants, finding their explanation reasonable. He said: \u201cDenying the applicants the opportunity to be heard could result in an injustice. There is nothing in the applicants\u2019 conduct to suggest that they freely took the decision to refrain from appearing.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n He stressed that the real question, whether Agnes\u2019s transfers were gifts or loans, was too important to dismiss without a full hearing. The judge ruled: \u201cA 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,\u201d the judge noted. \u201cThe justice of the case clearly favours letting this matter be heard on the merits.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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\u2019s final verdict. <\/p>\n\n\n\n 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\u2019s position that procedural errors should not shut people out of justice.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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.<\/p>\n\n\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/focusgn.com\/africa\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/7\/2025\/08\/justice-book_-Proxima-Studio-900x600-300x200.jpg\")
<\/p>\n