Bennie Sithole v Edward Matsangura

The appellant (Sithole) and respondent (Matsangura) entered into a lease agreement whereby the appellant let premises called Primrose Store to the respondent. The date of commencement and duration of the lease were in dispute. In October 1995, the respondent vacated the premises, claiming he had been unlawfully evicted by the appellant. The respondent alleged the appellant harassed him by forcing him to sign documents, allowing a prospective tenant (Mabhiza) to view the premises, breaking walls while goods remained, and ultimately confiscating keys on 21 October. The appellant denied eviction and claimed the respondent left voluntarily. After eviction, the appellant refused to release the respondent's property, claiming storage charges of $54,680 for the period September 1988 to March 1996. The respondent sued for damages of $37,960.67 for lost business profits and return of property valued at $11,510.50 or payment of its value. The appellant counterclaimed for storage charges.

• Whether the respondent was unlawfully evicted from the leased premises
• Whether the respondent was entitled to damages for lost business profits
• Whether the appellant was required to return the respondent's property or pay its value
• Whether the appellant was entitled to storage charges under the alleged agreement
• The proper application of set-off principles to mutual debts between the parties

1. Paragraph 3 of the High Court order was deleted and substituted with an order that the plaintiff (respondent) pay the defendant (appellant) $232 with interest at the prescribed rate from date of judgment to date of payment in full. 2. Subject to paragraph 1, the appeal was dismissed with costs.

A landlord who unlawfully evicts a tenant through harassment and intimidation breaches the lease agreement and must return the tenant's property or pay its value. An alleged agreement to pay storage charges will not be enforced where the documentary evidence is suspicious and the terms are inherently improbable (such as $20 per day for over seven years with no demand for payment during that period). Where parties owe mutual debts, the principles of set-off apply to determine the net amount owing. A claim for lost business profits requires sufficient evidence to establish quantum; failing this, absolution from the instance is appropriate.

The Court made observations about the credibility of witnesses, noting the appellant's aggressive and harsh demeanor in court which required admonishment. Sandura JA commented that if the respondent had left voluntarily, there would be no reason for him to make detailed allegations of harassment. The Court also observed that the seven-year delay in claiming storage charges suggested no genuine agreement existed, as it was unreasonable to expect anyone would wait so long to claim such charges if truly entitled to them.

This Zimbabwean case (not South African law) illustrates principles applicable to unlawful eviction from leased premises, the landlord's duty to return tenant property upon termination, the evidentiary burden for claiming lost business profits, and the requirements for establishing storage charge agreements. It demonstrates the importance of credibility findings in commercial disputes and the court's willingness to reject suspicious documentary evidence. The case also clarifies the application of set-off principles to mutual debts arising from lease relationships.