Knowe Residents and Ratepayers Association v Eddies Pfugari (Private) Limited and Others

The plaintiff, a group of residents of Knowe Housing Development, purchased undeveloped stands from the first defendant, a property development company. The first defendant had obtained a permit from Norton Town Council to develop a portion of a farm as a housing project, with obligations to service the area by providing tarred roads, proper drainage, reticulated water supplies to all stands, and sanitary systems. The first defendant failed to fulfill these obligations. The plaintiff successfully sued for specific performance in HC 2887/05, where Guvava J ordered the first defendant to fully service the residential area within 90 days. The first defendant appealed to the Supreme Court (SC 37/09), which dismissed the appeal with costs. Despite the Supreme Court's dismissal of the appeal, the first defendant did not comply with the High Court order. The second defendant was the Managing Director of the first defendant. The plaintiff then instituted contempt of court proceedings. The matter was originally filed as a court application but was referred to trial by Bere J. The defendants conceded in a joint statement of agreed facts that no further development work was done after the Supreme Court judgment, but denied that their non-compliance was willful and mala fide.

• Whether the first and second defendants were in contempt of court in respect of the order granted in HC 2887/05 and confirmed in SC 37/09
• Whether the non-compliance with the High Court order was willful and mala fide
• Whether defendants should pay costs on a legal practitioner-client scale

1. First and second defendants were declared guilty of contempt of court. 2. First defendant was sentenced to a fine of US$2,000 for contempt of court. 3. Second defendant was sentenced to 90 days imprisonment, wholly suspended on condition that first defendant performs its obligations as ordered in HC 2887/05 to the satisfaction of Norton Town Council, evidenced by an appropriate certificate of compliance. 4. First and second defendants to pay plaintiff's costs of suit on a legal practitioner and client scale, jointly and severally, the one paying the other to be absolved.

All orders of court, whether correctly or incorrectly granted, must be obeyed until they are properly set aside through proper legal channels. Non-compliance with a court order after an appeal has been dismissed constitutes willful and mala fide contempt of court. A party cannot excuse non-compliance with a court order by arguing that the judgment was ill-advised or overtaken by events. Both a corporate entity and its managing director can be held liable for contempt of court arising from the company's failure to comply with a court order. To establish contempt of court, the plaintiff must prove the elements beyond reasonable doubt, including that the non-compliance was willful and mala fide.

The court observed that the calling of the second defendant to testify was "not only ill advised but a clear demonstration by the defendants of their persistence with contempt." The court characterized the defendants' attitude as demonstrating "unrepentant" conduct and "contemptuous mischief." The court noted that the defendants' determination to persist with their contemptuous conduct even during the trial itself justified punitive costs. The court remarked that defendants regarded themselves as excused from complying with a judgment they disagreed with, which attitude warranted punitive sanctions.

This case is significant in Zimbabwean jurisprudence as it reinforces the fundamental principle that court orders must be obeyed regardless of whether a party agrees with them, until they are properly set aside through appropriate legal channels. It demonstrates the courts' willingness to impose punitive sanctions, including both fines and suspended imprisonment, against parties who willfully and mala fide fail to comply with court orders. The case also establishes that corporate entities and their directors can both be held personally liable for contempt of court, and that punitive costs on a legal practitioner-client scale are appropriate where defendants persist in contemptuous conduct even after losing an appeal. The judgment serves as a strong deterrent against parties who seek to evade court orders by arguing that judgments were ill-advised or overtaken by events.