Francis Ndowa v Godfrey Anyiga Adebe and T Anyiga Adebe

On 20 September 2005, the applicant (landlord) and the two respondents (tenants) concluded a lease agreement for the immovable property at 6 Thames Road, Vainona, Harare, for a period of twelve months terminating on 31 August 2006. The lease was not renewed, but after a dispute, the parties entered into a settlement agreement whereby the lease would continue until 30 December 2008, after which the respondents would vacate the premises. When 30 December 2008 arrived, the respondents did not vacate as agreed. The applicant approached the Rent Board for a certificate for eviction. On 9 April 2009, the Northern Region Rent Board issued a certificate for eviction of the respondents, effective 1 May 2009. The applicant then approached the High Court for an order of eviction. Only the second respondent opposed the application, claiming there was an oral agreement to extend the lease, that she became a statutory tenant, that the Rent Board certificate was wrongly issued, and that she intended to appeal to the Administrative Court.

• Whether the High Court could enquire into the propriety of the Rent Board's determination in an eviction application
• Whether the respondent's claimed status as a statutory tenant could be raised as a defence in the High Court proceedings
• Whether the applicant was entitled to an eviction order based on the Rent Board certificate

An order for eviction was granted in terms of the draft order, requiring the respondents to vacate the premises at 6 Thames Road, Vainona, Harare.

Once the Rent Board has issued a certificate for eviction under the Rent Regulations 2007, the High Court's function in eviction proceedings is limited to registering the certificate as an order of court. The High Court cannot enquire into the propriety or merits of the Rent Board's determination. Any challenge to the Rent Board's decision must be brought by way of appeal to the Administrative Court in terms of section 35 of the Rent Regulations 2007. A party cannot raise defences in the High Court that challenge the substance of the Rent Board's decision when seeking to resist enforcement of an eviction certificate.

The court noted that it did not know whether the respondent had placed the issue of her statutory tenant status before the Rent Board, indicating that this was a matter that should have been properly ventilated before the Rent Board in the first instance. The court also acknowledged the respondent's stated intention to appeal to the Administrative Court but noted that no such appeal had been lodged at the time of the High Court proceedings.

This case clarifies the division of functions between the High Court and the Administrative Court in landlord-tenant disputes involving Rent Board decisions. It establishes that once a Rent Board has issued an eviction certificate, the High Court's role is limited to registering the certificate as an order of court and cannot enquire into the merits of the Rent Board's determination. Challenges to the Rent Board's decision must be brought through the proper appellate channel (the Administrative Court) as provided in the Rent Regulations 2007. The case reinforces the principle that parties must utilize the correct forum for challenging administrative decisions and cannot collaterally attack such decisions in enforcement proceedings.