Jane Chipiti v Tatenda Dembaremba and Others

The plaintiff, Jane Chipiti, worked as a domestic worker and acquired Stand Number 3762 Dzivarasekwa 4, Harare, in 1989 through an assignment from Casmale Nyabvure, who had initially purchased it from the Municipality of Harare in 1984. In 1994, on advice from relatives, the plaintiff donated the property to her only son, the late Johannes Dembaremba, to enable him to secure a loan from his employer (City of Harare) to complete construction of the house. The donation was made on the express understanding that the plaintiff would retain undisturbed rights of occupation until her death. The property was transferred to Johannes in 1995 under Deed of Transfer No. 04697/95. The plaintiff alleged that Johannes and his wife (the second defendant) subsequently exhibited gross ingratitude by failing to care for her, destroying her property, denying her access, and taking her to false prophets who accused her of witchcraft. In 2021, while Johannes was ill, the plaintiff revoked the donation. Johannes allegedly acknowledged this and promised to reverse the transaction upon recovery, but he died before doing so. The first defendant is the executor of Johannes's estate and the second defendant is his surviving spouse.

• Whether the plaintiff had donated Stand 3762 Dzivarasekwa 4, Harare, to her late son Johannes Dembaremba
• Whether the plaintiff was entitled to revoke the donation on grounds of ingratitude
• Whether the City of Harare should have been cited as a party to the proceedings
• Whether the revocation was timeously made during the lifetime of the deceased
• Whether the right of revocation had prescribed after 27 years
• Whether alterations on documents affected their validity

1. Plaintiff's revocation of her donation of Stand Number 3762 Dzivarasekwa Township (held under Deed of Transfer 04697/95) to the late Johannes Dembaremba was confirmed. 2. The first defendant (executor) was ordered to sign all necessary papers and perform all acts necessary to effect transfer into the plaintiff's name within 30 days of service or when called upon by conveyancers, failing which the Sheriff of the High Court was authorized to do so in his stead. 3. Each party to bear its own costs.

A donation of immovable property, once perfected and transferred, may be revoked on grounds of ingratitude under Roman-Dutch law where the donee has committed serious infringements of the donor's personal, personality, or property rights, including failure to provide care, denial of access to donated property, and mistreatment of the donor. Registration of transfer in the Deeds Registry does not always reflect the true state of affairs and constitutes only prima facie proof of ownership which can be successfully challenged. For purposes of prescription, the right to revoke a donation on grounds of ingratitude accrues from the date of the ingratitude complained of, not from the date of the original donation. A local authority need not be cited as a party in property disputes where it no longer has a real interest in the property, such as where property has been fully paid for and transfer has been passed. Where a witness gives false evidence on a material point, the court is entitled to disbelieve that witness's evidence generally and draw adverse inferences.

The court noted that the principle from Taylor v Taylor that a donation can be revocable even after the property has been transferred remains good law. Maxwell J observed that the supporting witnesses (Augustine Muvishi and Joshua Chipiti Zengenene) who admitted they had no direct knowledge of the transactions and relied solely on what the plaintiff told them provided evidence of limited probative value. The court commented that the defendants' reliance on the Deed of Transfer stating a purchase price of $410.00 (the 1984 price) for a 1995 transaction was implausible given that the same property had been valued at $5400.00 in 1989. The judgment also noted that section 12 of the Civil Evidence Act creates a presumption of validity for documents bearing signatures of public officials which must be rebutted by the party challenging them.

This judgment reinforces the Roman-Dutch law principle that donations, while generally irrevocable once perfected, may be revoked on grounds of ingratitude. It clarifies that ingratitude constitutes serious infringements of the donor's personal, personality, or property rights, including neglect and denial of access. The case demonstrates that a registered title deed is not conclusive proof of ownership and can be successfully challenged (applying CBZ Bank Limited v David Moyo). It establishes that prescription for revocation runs from the date of the ingratitude complained of, not from the date of the original donation. The judgment also clarifies when a local authority need not be joined in property disputes - specifically when the property is no longer under lease and the authority has received full value and passed transfer, distinguishing cases like Rose v Arnold and Gomba v Makwarimba which involved leasehold properties. The case provides important guidance on evaluating credibility where parties make demonstrably false statements on material issues.