The applicant is a professional hunter who brings hunting clients to Zimbabwe from abroad. The respondent is a company conducting safari tourism business. In 2013, the parties agreed that two hunters, Mr Zucca and Mr Taddei, would undertake hunting at the respondent's safari. Both hunters successfully completed their hunting safari and departed. The applicant settled all the respondent's dues in respect of these two hunters. To send the hunting trophies to the two hunters, the applicant required completed TR 2 forms, which are provided by the respondent. Despite demand, the respondent failed to submit the TR 2 forms. The applicant sought an order compelling the respondent to deliver the relevant stamped TR 2 forms for Mr Zucca and Mr Taddei.
1. Within seven days of the granting of the order, the respondent is ordered to deliver to the applicant two completed TR 2 forms, appropriately stamped, relating to hunting safaris undertaken by Micco Zucca and Robeto Taddei in 2013, upon the applicant satisfying RBZ requirements. 2. The respondent pays costs of the application.
Each hunting safari constitutes a separate agreement between parties unless otherwise agreed. A party who has substantially fulfilled their obligations under a specific contract, or has made valid tender of performance, is entitled to specific performance from the other party in respect of that specific contract. A creditor cannot withhold performance under one fully satisfied contract to secure payment for debts arising from separate, independent contracts. An offer to pay outstanding amounts into a trust account, to be released upon the other party's performance, constitutes valid tender for purposes of obtaining specific performance. Specific performance will be granted where damages would not adequately compensate the applicant and the applicant seeks what was bargained for in the contract.
The court observed that the applicant had no problems complying with Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe requirements, which is why a proviso was included requiring satisfaction of RBZ requirements before the respondent's obligation to deliver the TR 2 forms would be triggered. The court also noted that in the specific context of exporting hunting trophies, the issue of damages does not arise as the only applicable remedy is specific performance - the applicant needs the actual TR 2 forms to export the trophies, and monetary compensation would not serve this purpose.
This case is significant in Zimbabwean contract law as it clarifies the principle of severability of contracts in the context of safari tourism agreements. It confirms that where parties engage in multiple transactions, each transaction constitutes a separate agreement unless there is evidence to the contrary. The case reinforces the principle that a creditor cannot withhold performance under one fully paid contract to secure payment under separate, unrelated contracts. It also provides guidance on the requirements for specific performance, reaffirming that where a party has fulfilled their obligations under a specific contract (or made valid tender), they are entitled to demand performance from the other party, particularly where damages would be inadequate. The case is also relevant to the safari and tourism industry in Zimbabwe regarding the issuance of TR 2 forms and export documentation for hunting trophies.