Immaculate Blessing Mabiza v Ivon Ngwira

The plaintiff and defendant entered into a written agreement around December 2008 for the purchase of stand 574 Juru Growth Point for US$4,500.00, with a deposit of US$2,000.00 and balance of US$2,500.00 to be paid by March 2009. Before the balance became due, the defendant increased the purchase price to US$9,000.00, effectively terminating the agreement. The plaintiff had taken occupation of the stand in January 2009 and effected improvements including installing electricity (US$1,380.00), building a blair toilet (US$350.00), plastering a cottage (US$150.00), and installing burglar bars (US$150.00). The defendant refunded the US$2,000.00 deposit in November 2012. The plaintiff claimed US$2,000.00 for improvements but had accepted an offer of US$1,100.00 from a new purchaser of the stand for the same improvements. The plaintiff could not produce receipts or invoices to support her claim for US$2,000.00.

• Whether the plaintiff was entitled to claim a refund of the purchase price and the value of improvements on the property
• What amounts were due to the plaintiff for improvements effected on the property
• Whether the winner was entitled to costs on the attorney and client scale
• The proper valuation of improvements made to immovable property

1. Judgment entered in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant in the sum of US$1,100.00 for improvements effected on stand 574 Juru Growth Point. 2. Interest on US$1,100.00 at the rate of 5% per annum from the date of summons to date of payment. 3. Each party to bear its own costs.

Where a plaintiff claims compensation for improvements made to property but fails to produce documentary evidence (receipts or invoices) to support the claimed amount, the court may rely on independent third-party valuations as a reliable measure of the true value of such improvements. A party who accepts a specific valuation from an independent third party cannot then claim a higher amount from another party without credible justification. Where parties are self-actors and have not incurred legal costs, the court will not award costs of suit.

The court observed that the defendant's defence of illegality (regarding payment in US dollars without monetary authority approval) was abandoned and not pursued at trial. The court took judicial notice that by refunding the purchase price, the defendant disentitled herself from relying on the illegality argument. The court also commented that the defendant's allegation that she was wrongly cited was "dishonesty in the extreme" given that the agreement of sale clearly showed her as the owner and seller of the property. The court noted it was "absurd" for the plaintiff to suggest there could be one price for the court and another for the new purchaser of the same improvements.

This case establishes principles regarding the valuation of improvements made to property in circumstances where an agreement of sale is terminated. It demonstrates the court's approach to assessing damages for improvements where documentary evidence is lacking, accepting independent third-party valuations as reliable evidence. The case also illustrates the principle that parties who overstate claims without supporting documentation may have their claims reduced to amounts supported by credible evidence. Additionally, it confirms that costs will not be awarded where parties acted in person and incurred no actual legal costs.