Absolom Muchandiona v Arosume Property Development (Private) Limited

The applicant purchased a stand from the City of Harare in 2008 and was required to pay development fees to the respondent for infrastructure development. In May 2014, the applicant paid US$21,791.91 believing this settled all development fees. In June 2015, the respondent demanded a further US$69,032.08 for additional developments, which the applicant disputed. By 2017, the amount stood at US$103,491.51. In July 2020, following the Zambezi Gas decision and S.I. 33 of 2019 and Finance Act No. 2 of 2019 converting US dollar obligations to Zimbabwean dollars, the applicant paid ZW$103,500.00 and sought a declaratur that this constituted full and final settlement. The respondent rejected the payment, returned the money, and averred that infrastructural developments were ongoing and incomplete. The applicant claimed developments were complete, citing that residents paid privately for electricity connection in 2020, he received a letter in December 2018 stating he could engage the Ministry for title registration, and the City of Harare issued him a building permit.

• Whether the court could grant a declaratur under Section 14 of the High Court Act where there were material disputes of fact
• Whether the application procedure was the appropriate procedure for determining factual disputes regarding completion of infrastructural development
• Whether the payment of ZW$103,500.00 constituted full and final settlement of development fees
• Whether infrastructural developments were complete or ongoing

The application for a declaratur was dismissed with no order as to costs.

A declaratur under Section 14 of the High Court Act cannot be granted where there are material disputes of fact between the parties. The declaratory relief procedure is designed to clarify rights and legal obligations where the facts are not in issue, not to resolve factual disputes. Where parties present contradicting factual circumstances that cannot be resolved on paper, the application procedure is inappropriate and the application must fail. The court's discretion to grant declaratory relief must be exercised judicially and will not be exercised where the applicant seeks to have the court accept their version of disputed facts as reality without proper evidence.

The court observed that even if the respondent was incorrect in returning the amount paid following the currency conversion under S.I. 33 of 2019 and the Zambezi Gas decision, this would not assist the applicant given the fundamental procedural defect in seeking declaratory relief on disputed facts. The court also noted that the applicant "should have foreseen" that no order on his legal obligations would be issued in the face of factual disputes about completeness of developments. The court's comments suggest sympathy with the general principle that S.I. 33 of 2019 converted US dollar obligations to Zimbabwean dollars as interpreted in Zambezi Gas Zimbabwe (Private) Limited v N.R. Barber (Private) Limited & Anor SC 3/2020, but this legal principle could not overcome the procedural deficiencies in the case.

This case establishes important principles regarding the proper use of declaratory relief under Section 14 of the High Court Act in Zimbabwean law. It emphasizes that declaratory orders are inappropriate where material disputes of fact exist that cannot be resolved on paper. The case serves as a reminder that applicants must choose the correct procedure - declaratory relief is for clarifying legal rights and obligations where facts are settled, not for resolving factual disputes. The case also touches on the practical application of currency conversion legislation (S.I. 33 of 2019 and Finance Act No. 2 of 2019) in the context of ongoing contractual obligations, though this was not determinative given the procedural defects.