Adlecraft (Private) Limited v Liberation Mining (Pvt) Limited

The applicant sought a declaratory order that an agreement of sale for a mobile crusher machine entered into with the respondent was valid and binding, and that the applicant's tender of payment made on 16 January 2020 was valid, entitling the applicant to ownership of the machine. However, on 17 January 2020, the respondent had obtained a rei vindicatio order against the applicant in HC 5622/19 before Chitapi J. The applicant appealed to the Supreme Court (SC 65/20) in February 2020, and filed this application on 11 March 2021. The Supreme Court subsequently upheld Chitapi J's judgment by consent on 8 March 2022. The earlier judgment (HH 493/21) had found the purported agreement of sale invalid because it was not signed by the applicant (seller), contained non-complied suspensive conditions regarding payment, and involved a forged Board Resolution.

• Whether the matter was res judicata
• Whether a declaratory order could be granted declaring an agreement valid when a previous judgment had declared it invalid
• Whether new evidence could justify departing from the principle of res judicata
• Whether specific performance could be ordered on an invalid agreement

The application was dismissed with costs on an attorney and client scale.

A matter is res judicata where there has been a final judgment by a competent court on the same subject matter, between the same parties, and based on the same cause of action. Once a matter has been determined and that determination has been upheld on appeal, a party cannot bring a fresh application seeking declaratory relief that contradicts the findings in the earlier judgment. The court will not grant relief that would result in two High Court judges making conflicting findings on identical facts between the same parties, as this would embarrass the court and undermine the finality of judicial decisions.

The court observed that the applicant's attempt to rely on section 24 of the Companies and Other Business Entities Act [Chapter 24:31] could not assist its cause or "breathe life" into the application. The court also noted the contradictory position of the applicant seeking specific performance based on an agreement of sale that the applicant itself had conceded was invalid before the Supreme Court. The court commented on the surprising nature of the submission that the tender of payment completed the transaction and entitled the applicant to specific performance, given the settled findings regarding the invalidity of the agreement.

This case reinforces the doctrine of res judicata in Zimbabwean law, demonstrating that parties cannot relitigate matters that have been finally determined by a competent court. It emphasizes that where a judgment has been given on the same subject matter, between the same parties, and on the same facts, the matter is conclusively settled and cannot be reopened through a new application seeking contradictory relief. The case also illustrates the importance of judicial consistency and the prevention of embarrassment that would arise from conflicting High Court judgments on identical issues. It demonstrates that attempts to introduce evidence belatedly or to argue exceptions to settled matters will not succeed where the core issues have been comprehensively determined in prior proceedings, especially where those determinations have been upheld on appeal by consent.