The appellant (Parkin) sold property to the respondent (Guardian Security Services). A dispute arose regarding what was sold. The Deed of Sale reflected two properties: (1) Subdivision A of Stand 1061 Bulawayo Township (a three-storey block of flats), and (2) The Remaining Extent of Stand 1061 Bulawayo Township (a house). The appellant contended he only sold the house, while the respondent claimed both properties were sold. The house was already registered in the respondent's name. The respondent had previously withdrawn its claim to the block of flats in February 1992 via a notice of withdrawal, but subsequently commenced proceedings in June 1995 to effect transfer of the flats. The respondent had been renting the house prior to purchase and obtained a mortgage bond from CABS for $28,038 over the house only. Correspondence from May 1987 indicated the respondent's intention to purchase "the property/house" for $50,000.
The appeal was allowed with costs. The order of the High Court was set aside and altered to read that the plaintiff's (respondent's) claim is dismissed with costs.
An appellate court may interfere with a trial court's findings of credibility where the reasons given for accepting certain evidence are unsatisfactory and the probabilities do not support those findings. In determining what was agreed to be sold under a contract of sale, contemporaneous documentary evidence (including correspondence between the parties, notes made at the time of agreement, mortgage bond documentation, and formal notices of withdrawal) carries significant weight and may outweigh later oral testimony, particularly where such documentary evidence is corroborated by multiple independent sources. The probabilities are crucial in assessing credibility, and where overwhelming probabilities support one version of events through corroborated documentary and oral evidence, a trial court's contrary finding may be set aside on appeal.
The Court observed that it was inconceivable that Mr Baron would have admitted to an embarrassing mistake in identifying the property if, in truth, the appellant had instructed that both properties be transferred. The Court also commented on the trial court's failure to make allowances for the passage of time (almost ten years) when assessing the quality of evidence from witnesses testifying about events long past. EBRAHIM JA noted that the trial court appeared to have taken no account of this factor when criticizing both the appellant's testimony and Mr Oberholzer's evidence for uncertainty or poor quality.
This Zimbabwean Supreme Court case is significant for its treatment of the assessment of evidence in contract disputes, particularly regarding: (1) the weight to be given to contemporaneous documentary evidence versus later oral testimony; (2) the interpretation of deeds of sale in light of surrounding circumstances and correspondence; (3) the principles governing appellate interference with trial court credibility findings; (4) the importance of probabilities in assessing credibility; and (5) the legal effect of formal withdrawals of claims and the evidentiary value of conduct of parties and their legal representatives in establishing the true nature of contractual agreements. The case demonstrates that corroborated documentary evidence from multiple independent sources can overcome a trial court's credibility findings where the probabilities favor a different conclusion.