On 6 December 1995, the applicant (Elizabeth Read) and the first and second respondents (Maikol Phiri and Jennifer Phiri) entered into an agreement whereby the applicant was given an option to purchase Stand 604, Victoria Falls for $100,000. The applicant paid $80,000 upon signature, with the balance of $20,000 to be paid upon transfer. The option was exercisable at any time after the respondents became owners of the property. At the time of the agreement, the property had not yet been transferred from the Municipality of Victoria Falls to the respondents. This transfer only occurred on 5 August 2005. The respondents subsequently sought to cancel the agreement, claiming they misunderstood the terms and believed they could not sell property to which they had no title. The applicant and her husband had also loaned the respondents $10,000, which they wanted to set off against the $20,000 balance. The respondents disputed this arrangement and argued that the $20,000 balance had been eroded by inflation. The applicant applied for a provisional order to compel transfer and prevent the respondents from transferring the property to anyone else or evicting the applicant.
The provisional order granted on 15 March 2006 was confirmed. The first and second respondents were ordered to transfer Stand 604, Victoria Falls to the applicant (as amended in the addendum). The respondents were ordered to do what was required to effect the transfer, apply for necessary authorities and certificates, and sign all required documentation within 14 days. In case of failure by the respondents, the applicant was given leave to act on their behalf and the Deputy Sheriff was authorized to sign the required documentation. The respondents were ordered to pay the costs of the application on an attorney/client scale.
A valid contract with an option to purchase must be enforced where the purchaser has complied with all contractual requirements. Economic hardship and inflation eroding the value of the purchase price do not constitute legally justifiable grounds for a seller to breach or cancel a valid contract. Misunderstanding of contractual terms by a party does not invalidate an otherwise valid contract where the terms are clear and the party has acted upon them. Courts will order specific performance to compel transfer of property where the purchaser has fulfilled their contractual obligations under a valid option to purchase agreement.
The court expressed moral sympathy for the respondents' position, acknowledging the obvious inflationary painful result and the prejudice suffered by those who sold their properties in Zimbabwean currency during the hard economic situation when inflation was fluid and galloping. However, the court emphasized that while this moral sympathy was understandable, it did not constitute a legal basis for refusing to honor contractual obligations. The court's acknowledgment of the moral dimension while maintaining the legal principle demonstrates the tension between equity and certainty in contract law during times of severe economic crisis.
This case is significant in Zimbabwean jurisprudence for demonstrating the principle of pacta sunt servanda (agreements must be kept) and the sanctity of contracts even in the face of economic hardship and inflation. It confirms that parties cannot unilaterally rescind valid contracts simply because economic circumstances have rendered the original terms disadvantageous. The case also illustrates the enforceability of option to purchase agreements and the willingness of courts to grant specific performance to compel transfer of property where contractual obligations have been met. While this is a Zimbabwean High Court decision, it may have persuasive value in South African law given the similarities in the legal systems and contract law principles.