Dilip Kumar Hassamal and Dolores (Private) Limited v Jeronda (Private) Limited

Around 1984, the first applicant (Dilip Kumar Hassamal) entered into an oral agreement with three close family members (Gulabrai Rijhumal Hassamal, Narandas Rijhumal Hassamal, and Hiranand Rijhumal Hassamal) to jointly contribute cash towards purchasing immovable property at the corner of JMN Nkomo and 8th Avenue from HM Harbour and CO Pvt Ltd. The objective was to acquire commercial premises for the family to carry on various businesses. The agreement provided that each of the four parties would receive 25% shareholding in the respondent company (Jeronda (Private) Limited), which was already incorporated with the other three parties as directors. The first applicant alleges he paid his 25% portion of the purchase price and took occupation of his section of the premises with the second applicant (Dolores (Private) Limited) since 1984, remaining in occupation for over 30 years. However, he never received the shares he was supposed to receive nor became a director. The three other parties to the agreement have since deceased. The respondent initiated eviction proceedings in HC 965/16, prompting the applicants to seek joinder to those proceedings.

• Whether the first applicant has sufficient locus standi and interest to be joined to the proceedings in HC 965/16
• Whether the requirements of Rule 85 for joinder of parties are satisfied - namely whether there are common questions of law or fact and whether the relief arises from the same transaction or series of transactions
• What standard must be met by an applicant for joinder - whether a prima facie case is sufficient
• Whether the first applicant's alleged claim has prescribed
• Whether the first applicant has any enforceable rights despite not being registered as a shareholder or director

The court granted an order for the joinder of the first applicant in HC 965/16, with costs being in the cause.

For joinder of parties under Rule 85, an applicant need only establish a prima facie case showing: (1) that common questions of law or fact would arise in the action; and (2) that the rights to relief claimed arise out of the same transaction or series of transactions. The applicant for joinder is not required to prove the ultimate merits of his claim or to overcome technical defences at the joinder stage. A prima facie case is established when the facts as presented by the applicant formulate a basis upon which his case stands on the face of it. The court should exercise its discretion in favor of joinder where the applicant shows sufficient interest in the subject matter of the proceedings and where joinder will not prejudice the opposing party, particularly where it will enable the court to give an effective order that is all-encompassing in so far as potential claims are concerned.

The court observed that instances of joinder cannot be dealt with as a rule of thumb, as Rule 85 subjects the court's decision to either the law or facts. The factual basis of a case is a wide net, meaning that each case depends on its own facts. The court noted that whichever direction or whatever practical steps the first applicant needs to take to lay a proper foundation for his claim (such as compliance with the Deeds Registration Act or addressing prescription defences) should be dealt with in the main proceedings in HC 965/16 rather than at the joinder stage. The court also commented that joinder would assist in dealing with all relevant parties once and for all, promoting judicial economy and comprehensive resolution of disputes.

This case provides important guidance on the test for joinder of parties in Zimbabwean civil proceedings. It establishes that at the joinder stage, courts should apply a prima facie standard rather than conducting a detailed examination of the merits of the applicant's ultimate claim or potential defences. The judgment emphasizes the practical benefits of joinder in enabling courts to deal with all related parties and issues in a single proceeding, thereby ensuring effective and comprehensive relief. The case illustrates the court's approach to balancing procedural efficiency with fairness to all parties, and confirms that technical defences (such as prescription or compliance with registration requirements) should be determined in the main proceedings rather than at the joinder stage. This promotes access to justice by not excluding parties with arguable interests from participating in proceedings that may affect their rights.