On 23 December 2020, the Applicant (Isaac Mapira) and the Second Respondent (Judith Hlatywayo) executed an agreement of sale for immovable property known as Stand 274 of Stand 1 Gletwyn Township measuring 6010 square metres for the price of US$60,000, which the Applicant paid in full on the date of signature. The First Respondent (Divine Homes (Pvt) Ltd) held a developer cession permit in respect of the property. On the same day, the parties executed a cession agreement wherein the Second Respondent ceded all her rights, interest, and obligations in the property, which was accepted by the First Respondent. The Second Respondent also deposed to an affidavit authorizing the First Respondent to effect change of ownership to the Applicant. However, when the Applicant approached the First Respondent to implement the cession, he was advised by Mr. Eliot James that they were unable to do so. Three reasons were advanced: (1) there was allegedly a verbal loan agreement between the parties with the property pledged as security; (2) the agreement was allegedly a pactum commissorium and therefore unenforceable; and (3) the property developer was advised that the agreement was subject to pending litigation. The Second Respondent claimed the transaction was actually a loan of US$20,000 at 35% interest per month, with the property as security, and that she was misled into signing the sale agreement.
1. The application to compel the First Respondent to implement the provisions of the cession agreement signed on 23 December 2020 was granted. 2. The First Respondent was ordered to register the cession agreement and thereupon recognize the Applicant as the lawful cessionary for all intents and purposes. 3. Respondents were ordered to pay costs of suit, jointly and severally, with one paying the other to be absolved, on the higher scale of legal practitioner and client.
The binding legal principles established are: (1) A party who participates in and accepts a cession agreement cannot subsequently deny being party to it or refuse to implement it without lawful justification. (2) The party alleging that an agreement is simulated (i.e., that it conceals a different transaction) bears the onus of proving the simulation, following Zander v van Zil 1910 AD 302. (3) For a mandatory interdict to be granted, the applicant must establish: (a) a clear or definite right (a matter of substantive law); (b) an injury committed or reasonably apprehended (an infringement of the established right and resultant prejudice); and (c) the absence of similar protection by any other ordinary remedy, as set out in Tribac (Pvt) Ltd v Tobacco Marketing Board 1996 (2) ZLR 52 (S). (4) Where parties have executed written agreements of sale and cession with clear terms, and one party subsequently alleges a different underlying transaction without evidence, the written agreements will prevail. (5) A developer holding a cession permit who accepts a cession agreement is bound to give effect to it and recognize the cessionary's rights.
The court made an observation regarding clause 5 of the application, noting that counsel for the Applicant submitted it was "overtaken by events," though the court did not elaborate on the implications of this. The court also observed that no order was sought against the Second Respondent save for costs, and that the Second Respondent could not be compelled to do anything as the substantive relief was directed only at the First Respondent. This suggests that the court recognized the primary obligation to implement the cession rested with the First Respondent as the developer/permit holder rather than with the Second Respondent as the cedent.
This case is significant in Zimbabwean property and contract law for clarifying the legal effect of cession agreements and the obligations of parties who participate in such agreements. It reinforces the principle that parties cannot unilaterally renege from cession agreements they have executed and accepted. The case also demonstrates the application of the onus of proof in cases of alleged simulated agreements, reaffirming the principle from Zander v van Zil that the party alleging simulation bears the burden of proving it. The judgment emphasizes that developers who participate in and accept cession agreements cannot subsequently refuse to give effect to those agreements without lawful justification. The award of costs on the attorney-client scale reflects the court's disapproval of the Respondents' conduct in attempting to resile from validly executed agreements.