City of Harare v Gibson Investments (Private) Limited

On 1 September 1989, the City of Harare (plaintiff) and Gibson Investments (defendant) entered into a lease agreement for 24 years 11 months, expiring on 31 July 2014. On 21 May 2013, plaintiff gave notice that the lease would not be renewed as it intended to use the premises for its own purposes. Upon expiry of the lease on 31 July 2014, defendant did not vacate and became a statutory tenant by operation of law under the Commercial Premises (Rent) Regulations, 1983. On 10 February 2015, plaintiff gave further notice demanding defendant vacate within 7 days. Defendant continued to pay rent on time. Plaintiff then issued summons claiming ejectment based on termination of lease by effluxion of time. In supplementary affidavit, plaintiff alleged it had good and sufficient grounds as it intended to use the premises itself. However, minutes from plaintiff's 2014 Finance and Development Committee meeting suggested plaintiff intended to lease the premises to other tenants. Plaintiff was also renting premises from Old Mutual.

• Whether the plaintiff established good and sufficient grounds for termination of statutory tenancy under section 22(2) of the Commercial Premises (Rent) Regulations, 1983
• Whether the plaintiff's causa of action was properly pleaded in the summons
• Whether the plaintiff demonstrated bona fides in claiming it wanted to use the premises for its own use
• What constitutes sufficient evidence to discharge the onus under section 22(2) of the Regulations

The plaintiff's claim was dismissed with costs.

The binding legal principle is that under section 22(2) of the Commercial Premises (Rent) Regulations, 1983, a landlord seeking to evict a statutory tenant on grounds of requiring premises for own use must: (1) properly plead the causa of action in the summons; (2) place sufficient documentary evidence before the court to demonstrate bona fide intention to use the premises for own use; (3) discharge the onus of proving good and sufficient grounds beyond merely stating it is the owner and wants the premises. The tenant is protected from eviction unless the court is satisfied the landlord has good and sufficient grounds other than that the tenant declined a rent increase or the landlord wishes to lease to another person. Evidence that suggests the landlord intends to lease to other tenants undermines the bona fides of a claim for own use and demonstrates an unscrupulous landlord.

The court made several non-binding observations: (1) that parties must stand and fall by their pleadings; (2) that where a cause of action regarding a statutory tenant is not in accordance with the regulations, it is of no moment that the landlord seeks to amend its causa through evidence rather than proper amendment of summons; (3) that there is a clear distinction between notice given to an ordinary tenant under contractual provisions and notice given to a statutory tenant under statutory provisions intended to protect such tenant from unscrupulous landlords; (4) that Rule 199 of the High Court Rules requires production of documentary evidence of intention to use premises for own use, rather than evidence of renting property elsewhere.

This case is significant in Zimbabwean landlord and tenant law as it clarifies the evidentiary requirements and pleading standards for landlords seeking to evict statutory tenants under the Commercial Premises (Rent) Regulations, 1983. It reinforces the protective purpose of statutory tenancy legislation against unscrupulous landlords and emphasizes that landlords must provide sufficient documentary evidence demonstrating bona fide intention to use premises for their own purposes. The case establishes that the causa for ejectment must be properly pleaded in the summons and cannot be amended through supplementary affidavits or heads of argument. It also demonstrates judicial scrutiny of landlords' actions and intentions to determine genuineness of claims.