The applicant and respondent are former spouses who divorced. Prior to their divorce, they signed a consent paper agreeing that they would sell their aeroplane(s), from the proceeds of which the applicant would receive USD 85,000. If payment failed, their property at Number 9 Knight Bruce Road, Milton Park, Harare would be sold. The property was eventually sold, and the applicant received her 50% share. However, the parties agreed in writing that the respondent's share would be withheld by the legal practitioners (Ncube and Partners and Sansole and Senda) pending: (a) registration of the property in favour of the purchaser; and (b) resolution of court cases between the parties. The applicant sought an order compelling immediate payment of USD 85,000 from the respondent's share, despite the agreement to withhold funds. High Court case HC 202/23 remained pending between the parties, which was one of the conditions specified in their agreement.
The application was dismissed with costs in favour of the respondent.
Where parties have freely and voluntarily entered into a binding agreement containing conditions precedent, the court will not order performance of an obligation until those conditions have been satisfied. Courts will uphold the sanctity of contract and will not rewrite agreements or excuse parties from consequences they have freely accepted, even if a prior court order existed, where subsequent contractual arrangements have modified the terms of performance. Contractual obligations only become due and enforceable when conditions precedent specified in the agreement have materialized.
The court observed that there was absolutely no need to mention the respondent's counsel (Mr Lawrence Chikwakwa) in his personal capacity in the litigation, as the withholding of funds was per agreement between the parties and not due to any improper conduct. The court remarked that this was "a strange application" and criticized the manner in which the relief was sought. The court commented that if the applicant believed she had an extant divorce order, she should have sought to enforce it rather than bringing this application. The court stated that the fact that the respondent is allegedly "a difficult person" does not concern the courts, and that courts cannot be roped in for speculative purposes. The court endorsed the principle that "parties have made their bed and they should sleep in it" when referring to contractual obligations freely undertaken.
This case reinforces the fundamental principle of sanctity of contract in Zimbabwean law, particularly in the context of post-divorce settlement agreements. It demonstrates that courts will not interfere with contractual arrangements freely entered into by parties, even when there may be prior court orders, if subsequent agreements have modified the terms. The case also establishes that conditions precedent in agreements must be satisfied before obligations become enforceable, and that courts will not entertain speculative applications where the applicant seeks to circumvent clear contractual terms based on assumptions about the other party's future conduct.