Hilda Muzika v Phoebe Kamhunga and Registrar of Deeds

In July 2001, the appellant (Muzika) sold property (Stand No. 851 Mabelreign Township, Harare) to the first respondent (Kamhunga) for Z$2,520,000. A deposit of Z$1,520,000 was paid, leaving a balance of Z$1,000,000 to be paid in two equal instalments. When the first respondent failed to pay the first instalment on the due date, the appellant sought to cancel the agreement. The first respondent refused and obtained a provisional order interdicting the appellant from disposing of the property. The High Court granted the order, and the appellant appealed to the Supreme Court (SC 112/02), arguing inter alia that the contract was not enforceable due to supervening illegality arising from Statutory Instrument 255 B of 2000 (as amended), which prohibited using exchange rates higher than the official rate. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the agreement did not require payment in foreign currency. After the first respondent paid the full balance in Zimbabwe dollars, the appellant filed a new application claiming the parties had signed a handwritten agreement requiring payment of the balance in pounds sterling (£4,546), which had not been produced in earlier proceedings. She sought an order compelling payment in foreign currency and stopping transfer of the property.

• Whether the matter was res judicata, having been finally determined by the Supreme Court in SC 112/02
• Whether the Supreme Court was functus officio and could not revisit its earlier final judgment
• Whether the appellant's application constituted an abuse of court process
• Whether exceptional circumstances existed to justify rescission, variation or correction of the earlier Supreme Court judgment

The appeal was dismissed with costs on a legal practitioner and client scale against the appellant.

The binding legal principles established are: (1) The doctrine of res judicata applies where two actions involve the same parties, the same subject matter, and the same cause of complaint, preventing relitigation of matters already finally determined; (2) A court that has made a final order is functus officio and has no authority to correct, alter or supplement that order except in extremely limited circumstances; (3) The common law permits rescission, variation or correction of judgments only in cases of fraud, justus error, or discovery of new documents after judgment; (4) Attempts to relitigate matters that have been finally determined by the highest court constitute an abuse of court process; (5) The principle of finality in litigation must be upheld to prevent endless litigation over settled matters.

The Court observed that the appellant's attempt to keep both the purchase price and the property while denying the first respondent possession of property she had fully paid for years earlier was "hardly ingenious." The Court noted that the handwritten agreement allegedly showing payment was to be in foreign currency had not been produced in either the original High Court proceedings or the first appeal to the Supreme Court, despite the parties having signed and relied on a typed agreement throughout. The Court's decision to award costs on the higher legal practitioner and client scale reflected its displeasure with the abuse of process, serving as a punitive measure and deterrent against frivolous litigation.

This case reinforces fundamental principles of South African and Zimbabwean civil procedure regarding the finality of litigation. It affirms that the doctrine of res judicata prevents relitigation of matters already finally determined between the same parties concerning the same subject matter and cause of complaint. The case also confirms that once a court has made a final order, it is functus officio and cannot revisit that order except in extremely limited circumstances (fraud, justus error, or discovery of new documents). The judgment emphasizes that attempts to circumvent final judgments through relitigation constitute an abuse of court process warranting punitive cost orders. It serves as a strong deterrent against parties attempting to relitigate matters by introducing evidence that could and should have been presented in the original proceedings.