Arosume Property Development Private Limited v Farai Olivia Mashonganyika and Minister of Local Government and Public Works

The applicant, Arosume Property Development Private Limited, is a land developer engaged in a Public-Private Partnership (PPP) arrangement with the State through the second respondent (Minister of Local Government and Public Works). The arrangement involved a tripartite agreement between the applicant, the Ministry, and Sally Mugabe Housing Co-operative Society for the development of residential stands at Carrick Creagh Farm, Borrowdale. The first respondent, Farai Olivia Mashonganyika, purchased Stand 91 Kidron Valley Road, Carrick Creagh Estate, Borrowdale, Harare from the second respondent in 2011 for US$4,000.00. The property was transferred to her under Deed of Transfer 5690/2011. She had also previously paid US$10,000.00 to the applicant in 2009 after alleged misrepresentation that it had authority to sell properties. In April 2022, the second respondent issued a notice of intention to cancel the first respondent's title deed, citing that she had neglected/refused to pay her pro-rated share of development costs (US$520,195.00) to the developer (applicant), and that she was not a member of Sally Mugabe Housing Cooperative. The title deed was cancelled on 23 March 2021 without further notice to the first respondent. The first respondent filed an application for review (HCH 884/24) challenging the second respondent's decision to cancel her title deed. The applicant had previously filed an urgent chamber application (HCH 700/24) seeking to interdict the first respondent from building on the property. The applicant then sought to be joined as the second respondent in HCH 884/24 to protect its interests under the tripartite agreement.

• Whether the applicant has a direct and substantial interest in the property that would entitle it to be joined as a party to the review proceedings in HCH 884/24
• Whether the applicant's rights would be affected by any judgment rendered in HCH 884/24 without its involvement
• Whether joinder would ensure that all matters in dispute concerning the property are effectually and completely determined
• The requirements for joinder under Rule 32(12) of the High Court Rules, 2021

1. The application was granted. 2. The applicant was joined as the second respondent to the matter in HCH 884/24. 3. The applicant was directed to file its opposing papers, if any, in HCH 884/24 within five days of the granting of the order. 4. Costs were reserved to be determined in the cause in the main matter in HCH 884/24.

For a party to be joined to proceedings under Rule 32(12) of the High Court Rules, 2021, the party must demonstrate: (1) a direct and substantial interest in the issues raised in the proceedings (being an interest in the right which is the subject matter of the litigation, not merely a financial or indirect interest); and (2) that their rights may be affected by the judgment of the court. Where a dispute involves multiple parties with competing interests arising from contractual arrangements (such as a tripartite agreement), and one party institutes proceedings that could affect the rights of another party not joined to those proceedings, the court has discretion to order joinder to ensure that all matters in dispute may be effectually and completely determined and adjudicated upon. The purpose of joinder is to prevent unnecessary multiplicity of litigation and to facilitate speedy and wholesale resolution of disputes by ensuring that everyone whose legal interests are likely to be affected by the outcome of proceedings is made aware and given an opportunity to protect their interests.

The court observed that the first respondent's characterization of the review proceedings as merely about asserting rights against the second respondent as an administrative authority was "rather superficial," noting that the dispute was much broader than the administrative process. The court noted with interest that while the first respondent acknowledged being served with an urgent application for an interdict concerning the property (HCH 700/24), she curiously failed to mention in her affidavit in HCH 884/24 that this application was filed by the applicant seeking joinder, suggesting awareness of the applicant's competing interest in the property. The court emphasized the principle that costs in interlocutory applications that are offshoots of pending main proceedings should appropriately be deferred to the main matter, allowing for comprehensive determination of costs once all issues have been finally resolved.

This case is significant in Zimbabwean civil procedure law as it clarifies the requirements and principles for joinder of parties under Rule 32(12) of the High Court Rules, 2021. The judgment emphasizes the court's discretion to join parties whose presence is necessary to ensure complete and effectual determination of all matters in dispute, particularly in complex property disputes involving multiple stakeholders in public-private partnership arrangements. The case demonstrates that joinder will be granted where a party has a direct and substantial interest in the subject matter (not merely a financial interest) and where their rights may be affected by the judgment. It also illustrates the principle that joinder serves to prevent multiplicity of litigation and promotes judicial economy by allowing all interested parties to have their rights determined in one comprehensive proceeding.