The applicant had an ongoing business relationship with the respondents whereby respondents would operate applicant's trucks for mutual benefit. The parties agreed that applicant should purchase two more trucks from South Africa with respondents' assistance. Applicant obtained a loan from CABS for US$38,000.00 and paid this to respondents on 26 August 2013. Two trucks were acquired in South Africa at a total cost of US$46,836.75, with the balance to be paid during the normal course of business. Both trucks were imported and registered in the applicant's name. A misunderstanding arose in 2013 leading to breakdown of the relationship. Respondents then expelled applicant from the business and withheld the two trucks (MAN Horse diesel trucks, registration numbers ACQ 2254 and ACQ 2253). Respondents alleged that applicant owed them US$46,836.75, and that the parties had agreed to dupe the bank by pretending the loan was for truck purchase when it was actually to settle applicant's debt. Respondents claimed the trucks were registered in applicant's name only to deceive the bank.
The court ordered: (1) The temporary interdict operational on 1st, 2nd and 3rd respondents be confirmed to be final and perpetual; (2) The applicant be declared the owner of 2 x MAN Horse trucks registration numbers ACQ 2253 and ACQ 2254; (3) Costs of suit at an attorney and client scale by 1st, 2nd and 3rd respondents jointly and severally liable, the one paying the others to be absolved.
The binding legal principles established are: (1) A contract formed with the intention to defraud a third party (in this case a bank) is illegal or contra bonos mores and is unenforceable - the law will not lend its aid to enforcement of a contract which the law itself prohibits; (2) Registration of ownership of vehicles in a party's name, coupled with documentary evidence of purchase and importation, establishes prima facie ownership rights; (3) A party alleging ownership contrary to registration documents bears the burden of proving their claim with clear and coherent evidence; (4) Unenforceability of illegal contracts means that specific performance will not be granted, nor a claim for payment, nor any other claim for enforcement no matter how it is framed.
The court made critical observations about the quality of the respondents' case, noting that they had filed 'a mumbo-jumbo of voluminous and confusing documents' expecting the court to make sense of them. The court also commented on the illogical nature of the respondents' position, including the contradictions in the alleged agreements of sale where a company director purportedly sold company property without proper authorization, and where the alleged purchaser (respondents) were making payments to the applicant despite claiming they already owned the trucks. The court highlighted the absurdity of the authorization provision in the sale agreements which had things 'the other way round'.
This case demonstrates the Zimbabwean courts' approach to illegal contracts and the principle that courts will not enforce contracts that contravene the law or are contra bonos mores. It illustrates that parties cannot rely on their own fraudulent schemes to establish property rights, and confirms that registration of ownership in documentary form, supported by payment evidence, establishes a strong prima facie case for ownership. The case also reaffirms principles regarding resolution of factual disputes on the papers in motion proceedings and the requirements for final interdicts in commercial disputes.