The applicant and respondent entered into a lease agreement on 30 June 2008 for premises at 36 Miranzi Road, Kambanji, Harare. After Zimbabwe adopted a multi-currency system, the rental was set at US$300 per month. In July 2009, the respondent allegedly only paid US$200, leaving a balance of US$100. The respondent then failed to pay any rentals from August 2009 to December 2009 when summons was issued. The applicant made demand for payment and gave notice to vacate, but the respondent neither paid nor vacated. The respondent admitted owing US$1200 but disputed owing US$1600 (though she also referred to US$1800 inconsistently). She claimed she paid August 2009 rentals and alleged non-payment was due to funerals of her father and father-in-law. She also alleged there was a new payment plan/novation between the parties.
The application for summary judgment succeeded. An order was granted in terms of the draft, which included: (a) eviction of the respondent from the premises at 36 Miranzi Road, Kambanji, Harare; (b) payment of arrear rentals of US$1600 for July to December 2009; (c) holding over damages at US$300 per month from January 2010 until vacation or eviction; and (d) costs of suit.
In an application for summary judgment: (1) A plaintiff's founding affidavit must verify the cause of action and amount claimed, and state that in the deponent's opinion there is no bona fide defence (per Rule 64 and Chiadzwa v Faulkner). (2) A defendant opposing summary judgment must allege material facts that, if proved at trial, would constitute a defence - mere bald, vague or sketchy allegations are insufficient. (3) A defendant must take the court into confidence and provide sufficient information to enable the court to assess the defence; failure to particularize key facts (such as dates, amounts, and parties to alleged payments or agreements) demonstrates lack of bona fides. (4) Where a defendant admits owing part of the claim but disputes the balance without proper particulars, and alleges defences like novation without providing details of when, with whom, or what was agreed, the defendant has not established a prima facie defence.
The court noted that the respondent appeared confused about the amount in dispute, referring to both US$1600 and US$1800 when the claim was for US$1600. The court also observed that the respondent's statement that she could only be compelled to discover proof of payment at trial was misplaced in the context of summary judgment proceedings, where the defendant must provide sufficient facts to show a plausible defence. The court made a critical observation that when defendants make needlessly bald, vague or sketchy allegations, this constitutes material for the court to consider in relation to the requirement of bona fides.
This case reinforces important principles in Zimbabwean civil procedure regarding summary judgment applications. It clarifies the standards for both plaintiffs' founding affidavits and defendants' opposing affidavits in summary judgment proceedings. The judgment emphasizes that while the burden on defendants is not onerous, they cannot rely on vague, bald allegations but must provide sufficient factual detail to demonstrate a plausible defence. The case serves as a warning that defendants who fail to properly particularize their defences risk having summary judgment entered against them.