Assaniel Douglas Mashanyare v Regis Ginya

The plaintiff sued the defendant for payment of US$9,133.48 in respect of damages to house number 205 Teresa Close, Groombridge, Mount Pleasant, Harare, and unpaid utility bills that accumulated during the defendant's occupation of the plaintiff's house under a lease agreement from 1 September 2007 to end of September 2011. At termination of the lease, the defendant had accumulated electricity, water and rates arrears and had caused damage to the property. The parties agreed that the defendant owed $1,894.56 for electricity and $800.00 for damages. The dispute centered on whether the defendant was liable for $3,000.00 that the plaintiff had paid to the City of Harare for water and rates arrears, given that on 23 July 2013 the Minister of Local Government had issued a directive writing off municipal debts owed by individual ratepayers as at 30 June 2013. The plaintiff had paid the $3,000.00 to the municipality before the write-off directive was issued.

• Whether the defendant was liable to refund the plaintiff the sum of $3,000.00 paid by the plaintiff to the City of Harare for water and rates arrears in circumstances where the government had subsequently written off municipal debts as at 30 June 2013
• Whether the ministerial directive writing off municipal debts applied retrospectively to amounts already paid before the directive was issued
• Whether the plaintiff had a claim based on unjust enrichment
• Whether the plaintiff had a claim based on breach of contract

Judgment entered in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant in the total sum of $5,694.56 together with interest at the prescribed rate from the date of judgment to date of payment. Each party to bear its own costs.

A ministerial directive writing off municipal debts as at a specified date applies only to debts outstanding at that date and does not apply retrospectively to amounts already paid before the directive was issued. Where a tenant fails to pay utility bills in breach of a lease agreement and the landlord pays those bills on the tenant's behalf, the landlord is entitled to recover such payments from the tenant either: (1) on the basis of unjust enrichment, where the tenant has been enriched by receiving services without payment, the enrichment is at the landlord's expense, and the enrichment is unjustified; or (2) as contractual damages for breach of the tenant's obligation under the lease agreement to pay utility bills.

The court noted its agreement with the general enrichment action as recognized in Zimbabwean law and traced its origins to Roman Law as referenced in Goncalves v Rodrigues. The court observed that the write-off directive was intended to cushion individual ratepayers from severe effects of economic challenges experienced during the period in question, and specifically excluded corporates from the relief. The court also commented that the defendant's written submissions were filed one day late, outside the timeframe the parties had committed themselves to, though this did not affect the court's consideration of the matter.

This case is significant for clarifying that governmental debt write-off directives apply only to debts outstanding at the specified date and do not operate retrospectively to refund amounts already paid. It affirms the application of unjust enrichment principles in Zimbabwean law, following the acceptance of the general enrichment action in Industrial Equity v Walker. The case demonstrates that landlords can recover payments made on behalf of tenants who breach lease obligations either through enrichment actions or as contractual damages. It also illustrates the proper interpretation of ministerial directives in the context of municipal debt relief measures.