Bothwell Mnyoni v Waverly Trading and Investments Company Limited and The Registrar of Deeds N.O

The plaintiff, a 68-year-old former employee of the first defendant company, worked for 31 years from a barman to manager position. In February 1991, the first defendant purchased a house (stand 1560 Nketa Township) which was transferred into the company's name. The plaintiff claimed that Leonardus George Nicolaas Scheijde (L. Scheijde), whom he called "the chairman", agreed that if the plaintiff served the company loyally and passionately until retirement, the house would be transferred to him upon retirement. The plaintiff moved into the house and paid rates, water, and electricity bills. When the plaintiff retired in 2011, the first defendant refused to transfer the house and instead demanded he vacate the property. L. Scheijde had died in 2004. The plaintiff sued seeking transfer of the house or alternatively $16,000 as replacement value. The first defendant counterclaimed for eviction.

• Whether the parties entered into an agreement for transfer of the house to the plaintiff upon his retirement
• Whether L. Scheijde had authority to enter into an agreement binding on the first defendant in 1991
• Whether the plaintiff fulfilled the suspensive conditions (loyal and passionate service until retirement)
• Whether the first defendant was entitled to evict the plaintiff from the house

1. The plaintiff's claim was dismissed. 2. The first defendant's counterclaim succeeded with an order restoring possession of stand 1560 Nketa Township to the first defendant and evicting the plaintiff and all those claiming occupation through him. 3. The plaintiff was ordered to pay costs of suit.

1. A company can only be bound by agreements made by persons acting under its authority, typically directors acting pursuant to board resolutions. An agreement purportedly made by someone who was not a director at the material time and without board authorization cannot bind the company. 2. In vindicatory actions (actio rei vindicatio), the registered owner need only prove ownership and that the property is in possession of another. The onus then shifts to the possessor to prove a right of retention. 3. Where an alleged agreement contains suspensive conditions, the party alleging the agreement must prove fulfillment of those conditions before entitlement to performance arises. 4. Parties are bound by their pleadings and cannot contradict them in oral evidence without leave to amend.

Mathonsi J expressed strong criticism of what he described as a "get rich fast syndrome" and "primitive accumulation" - a concerning cultural trend where persons seek to acquire property without paying for it, wanting to "reap where they did not sow." The judge quoted Zhou J in Southmark Trading (Pvt) Ltd v Karoi Properties (Pvt) Ltd HH 52/13 stating the biblical principle "whatever a man sows, that he will reap" has lost meaning in society. The court found it "shameful" that the plaintiff refused to vacate from 2010 through 2011 to the date of judgment on "flimsy grounds" and expressed inability to understand why people believe "life should be that easy" by claiming ownership of property they did not pay for. The court noted it was "quite strange" that an articulate party conducting his own case in good English would not have requested or kept a copy of an alleged written agreement.

This case is significant in Zimbabwean law for: (1) reinforcing that parties are bound by their pleadings and cannot contradict them in evidence; (2) emphasizing the importance of corporate formalities - that companies can only be bound by persons with proper authority acting under board resolutions; (3) confirming the rei vindicatio principle that a registered owner has vindictory rights against unauthorized possessors, with the onus shifting to the possessor to prove a right of retention; (4) demonstrating that suspensive conditions must be objectively proven to have been fulfilled; and (5) addressing what the court described as a concerning trend of "primitive accumulation" where persons seek to claim ownership of property they did not pay for. The judgment strongly condemned attempts to acquire wealth without consideration.