Josephine Matambanadzo v Natu Lala Goven

In February 1999, the respondent Goven purchased Flat No. 6, Belgrave House, Aberdeen Road, Avondale, Harare from the estate of the late John Harold West. At the time, the appellant Matambanadzo occupied the property as a lessee under an oral lease agreement with the deceased, set to expire on 30 June 1999. Goven's legal practitioner gave written notice to vacate by end of June 1999, which Matambanadzo refused. Goven instituted civil proceedings for eviction, but withdrew the action after Matambanadzo filed a special plea that the High Court lacked jurisdiction without a certificate from the Rent Board as required by s 30(4) of the Rent Regulations, 1982. Goven's legal practitioner applied to the Rent Board for the requisite certificate in September and December 2000, but received no response. In November 2001, he was informed the Chairman had retired and no new appointment had been made. Goven then obtained a court order on 19 December 2001 directing the Rent Board to determine his application within seven days, failing which he could approach the High Court for relief without further recourse to the Rent Board. When the Rent Board did not comply, Goven filed an eviction application. Matambanadzo opposed and filed a counter-application to rescind the 19 December 2001 order. The High Court granted the eviction order and dismissed the counter-application.

• Whether Goven's eviction application could be granted in the absence of a certificate from the Rent Board as required by s 30(4) of the Rent Regulations, 1982
• Whether the order of 19 December 2001 allowing Goven to approach the High Court without recourse to the Rent Board was properly granted
• Whether Matambanadzo had locus standi in judicio to seek rescission of the 19 December 2001 order under Rule 449(1)(a) of the High Court Rules
• What test must an applicant satisfy to establish locus standi for rescission of an order granted in their absence

1. The appeal is allowed with costs. 2. The order of the court a quo is set aside and the following is substituted: (a) The application is dismissed with costs. (b) The counter-application is granted with costs.

1. Section 30(4) of the Rent Regulations, 1982 expressly prohibits an eviction order on grounds specified in s 30(2)(c) or (d) unless the Rent Board has issued a certificate confirming that the requirement for the tenant to vacate is fair and reasonable. The certificate is a mandatory prerequisite and the High Court has no power to grant an eviction order of a statutory tenant without it. 2. An applicant for rescission of a judgment or order under Rule 449(1)(a) of the High Court Rules must establish locus standi by showing an interest in the subject-matter of the judgment or order sufficiently direct and substantial to have entitled them to intervene in the original application. 3. An order allowing a landlord to approach the High Court for eviction relief without recourse to the Rent Board, where the statutory scheme requires the Rent Board's certificate, is misconceived and erroneously granted.

The Court noted with approval the purpose of rescission rules as described in Theron N.O. v United Democratic Front (a South African case), namely that they are procedural steps designed to correct irregularities and restore parties to the position they were in before an order was erroneously granted. The Court observed that there was nothing in the papers indicating whether a new Chairman of the Rent Board had been appointed by the time Goven filed his court application seeking the order directing the Rent Board to determine his certificate application.

This case is significant in Zimbabwean landlord and tenant law as it firmly establishes the mandatory nature of the Rent Board certificate requirement under s 30(4) of the Rent Regulations, 1982 before eviction of a statutory tenant can be ordered. It confirms that courts cannot circumvent statutory protections afforded to tenants, even where administrative bodies fail to perform their functions. The judgment also clarifies the principles of locus standi for rescission applications under Rule 449(1)(a), adopting South African jurisprudence on the equivalent rule. It establishes that a party affected by an order has standing to seek rescission if they have a sufficiently direct and substantial interest that would have entitled them to intervene in the original proceedings. The case reinforces procedural protections for residential tenants and limits the court's ability to grant relief when statutory prerequisites have not been satisfied.