CaseNotes LogoCaseNotes
  • Home
  • Library
  • Research
  • Discussion Hub
  • Wiki
  • Latin Dictionary
  • Question Bank
  • Settings
S

Student

Student Account

South African Law • Jurisdictional Corpus
HomeLibraryResearchQuestionsSettings
Judicial Precedent
Ask AI

Constance Zvamaida Mandewo v City of Harare

CitationHH 201-14, HC 5344/10
JurisdictionZW
Area of Law
Administrative LawProperty Law
Free account

Get the most out of this judgment

Create a free CaseNotes account to save this case, see how it's cited, get an AI summary, and search 10,000+ SA judgments.

Create free accountor sign in
Contract Law

Facts of the Case

The dispute concerned Stand No 396A Dzivarasekwa Township. The late Mr Mazuru entered into a lease agreement with the respondent (City of Harare) with an option to purchase. He sold his rights to Mr Mukadiro, who in April 2008 sold his rights to the applicant. The applicant paid the full purchase price to Mukadiro. Both the applicant and Mukadiro paid required amounts to the respondent and on 6 May 2008 signed a Memorandum of Agreement of Assignment. On 2 July 2008, the respondent's Director of Housing confirmed the assignment in writing to the applicant. However, on 14 November 2008, the respondent cancelled the cession, claiming the original lease agreement with the late Mr Maziva had been cancelled and the transaction was void. The applicant approached the court seeking to have the Memorandum of Agreement of Assignment declared valid and binding.

Legal Issues

  • Whether the respondent was functus officio when it attempted to cancel the cession
  • Whether the applicant had a right to be heard before the administrative decision to cancel the cession was made
  • Whether the respondent was justified in departing from the requirements of section 3(1) of the Administrative Justice Act
  • Whether the cession was tainted with illegalities as alleged by the respondent

Judicial Outcome

1. The Memorandum of Agreement of Assignment issued by the respondent in favour of the applicant on 7 July 2008 was declared valid and binding on the respondent. 2. The decision by the respondent to cancel the cession of Stand 396A Dzivarasekwa Township to the applicant was declared to be of no force or effect. 3. The applicant shall remain vested with all rights flowing from the cession until such time as the cession is cancelled in terms of the law. 4. The respondent shall pay costs of suit.

Ratio Decidendi

An administrative authority becomes functus officio when its decision has been officially communicated to the person affected, after which point the authority cannot unilaterally vary, revoke or suspend that decision. Once official communication occurs, the affected person acquires vested rights that cannot be arbitrarily cancelled. An administrative authority must comply with the audi alteram partem principle (right to be heard) before taking administrative action that adversely affects a person's existing rights or legitimate expectations, as required by section 3(1) of the Administrative Justice Act. An administrative authority seeking to depart from procedural fairness requirements under section 3(3)(b) must establish that the departure is reasonable and justifiable in the circumstances, taking into account all relevant factors.

Obiter Dicta

The court observed that even if the applicant had not paid the full purchase price to the respondent, this would not constitute circumstances warranting a departure from the provisions of section 3(1) of the Administrative Justice Act. The court also noted that the respondent's allegations of fraud and misrepresentation were not supported by the evidence, as the respondent's own correspondence demonstrated awareness of the three-pronged cession sequence and the respondent had actively participated in the cession process by signing the Memorandum of Agreement and issuing confirmatory correspondence.

Legal Significance

This case is significant in Zimbabwean administrative law (applicable to South African jurisprudence given similar administrative law principles) for clarifying: (1) the doctrine of functus officio in administrative decision-making - that an administrative authority becomes functus officio once its decision has been officially communicated to the affected person, after which point it cannot unilaterally revoke the decision; (2) the application of the audi alteram partem rule (right to be heard) in administrative actions affecting vested rights and legitimate expectations; (3) the limited circumstances under which an administrative authority may depart from procedural fairness requirements; and (4) the courts' willingness to protect acquired rights against arbitrary administrative action even where the underlying transaction involves multiple cessions.

Practice This Case

Sign up to practise IRAC analysis, issue spotting, and argument building on this case.

Explore More Cases

More Administrative Law cases

  • 1. Tapera Sengweni v The Law Society of Zimbabwe 2. Augustine Runesu Chizikani v The Law Society of ZimbabweHH 706-19, LPDT 8/18 and LPDT 27/18
  • 3M South Africa (Pty) Ltd v The Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service(272/09) [2010] ZASCA 20 (23 March 2010)
  • AAA Investments (Proprietary) Limited v The Micro Finance Regulatory Council and Another2006 (11) BCLR 1255 (CC) (also reported as CCT 51/05)
  • Aaron Shanje v Ticharwa Murehwa and OthersHH 218-18, HC 9346/17
  • Aaron Zhomwe v BHP Minerals CompanyS.C. 3/2001 (Civil Appeal No. 25/2000)
  • Abahlali baseMjondolo Movement SA and Another v Premier of the Province of KwaZulu-Natal and Others(CCT 12/09) [2009] ZACC 31
  • Abbott v Overstrand Municipality(99/2015) [2016] ZASCA 68
  • Abdul Kadir Yassin Ismail v Registrar General N.O and Minister of Home AffairsHH 519-17, HC 9899/16

More Zimbabwe cases

  • (1) Douglas Tanyanyiwa (2) Douglas Warriors Football Club v Lawrence Bernard GwaradaCivil Appeal No. SC 150/11; Judgment No. SC 79/2014
  • (1) Elias Hwenga (2) Mercy Hwenga (3) Kenneth (4) Prince Nyemba (5) A. P. Phillip and Company (Private) Limited v FBC Bank LimitedJudgment No. SC 36/21, Civil Appeal No. SC 204/16
  • (1) Isador Husaiwevhu (2) Walter Mutowo (3) Fungai Zinyama v (1) UZ-UCSF Collaborative Research Programme (2) Sheriff of Zimbabwe N.O (3) High Court Registrar N.OJudgment No. SC 86/25, Civil Appeal No. SC 302/25
  • (1) Petros Makaza (2) Golden Nhika v The State and (1) Khumbuzo Gumbo (2) Sydney Ndachengedzwa v The StateCCZ 16/17 (Const. Application No. CCZ 5/13 and Const. Application No. CCZ 102/13)
  • 1. Tapera Sengweni v The Law Society of Zimbabwe 2. Augustine Runesu Chizikani v The Law Society of ZimbabweHH 706-19, LPDT 8/18 and LPDT 27/18
  • (1) Tungamirai Madzokere (2) Lazarus Maengahama (3) Stanford Maengahama (4) Phineous Nhatarikwa (5) Stanford Mangwiro (6) Yvonne Musarurwa (7) Rebecca Mafukeni v The State
SC 8/12; Civil Application No. 318/11
  • A. Adam and Company (Private) Limited & 2 Others v Good Living Real Estate (Private) LimitedSC 50/21; Civil Appeal No. SC 351/19
  • A. Adam and Company (Private) Limited and Others v Goodliving Real Estate (Private) LimitedSC 18/21; Civil Appeal No. SC 444/19