The applicant, Leonard Mupini, donated stand 1411 Malbereign Township to his grandson, the first respondent, in 2023 out of love, kindness and benevolence. The property was transferred to first respondent by deed of transfer Registration Number 3425/2024 dated 7 August 2024. Applicant claimed he was to enjoy a usufruct over the property for his entire life and remained in occupation after the transfer. Subsequently, applicant sought to revoke the donation based on alleged gross ingratitude by first respondent. Applicant alleged that: (i) first respondent instituted eviction proceedings against applicant's wife and minor children under case Hre ECG 4513/24; (ii) first respondent and his father disturbed applicant's peaceful occupation using violent conduct; and (iii) first respondent subjected applicant to emotional and psychological trauma while applicant was in ill health. First respondent denied all allegations, stating he never instructed the eviction summons, has never disturbed applicant's occupation, and has been supporting applicant financially including medical expenses. A dispute of fact arose on all three grounds for revocation.
The application was dismissed with costs.
A donor seeking to revoke a donation intervivos on grounds of ingratitude must prove the ingratitude with credible evidence. Where material disputes of fact exist regarding the alleged acts of ingratitude that cannot be resolved on the papers, the application procedure is inappropriate and the application must be dismissed. The burden is on the donor to prove serious infringements by the donee of the donor's rights, and that the donee acted with intent. Mere allegations without supporting evidence are insufficient to establish grounds for revocation of a donation.
The court noted that under Roman-Dutch law, ingratitude as a ground for revocation requires serious conduct including personal violence against the donor, treacherous deeds causing great pecuniary losses, exposure to danger threatening the donor's life, and breach of written or oral undertakings. The court observed that in all such situations the donee must have acted with intent. The court also noted that a donee cannot be held accountable for the actions of his father, as they are separate legal personas.
This case illustrates the application of Roman-Dutch law principles regarding revocation of donations intervivos on grounds of ingratitude in Zimbabwe. It demonstrates the high evidentiary threshold required to prove ingratitude, requiring serious infringements of the donor's personal rights, personality rights and property rights, and that the donee must have acted with intent. The case also reinforces the procedural principle that where disputes of fact are anticipated, the application procedure is inappropriate and action proceedings should be instituted instead. The case applies the principles established in Mukundu v Mukundu, Malaba v Malaba, and Taylor v Taylor regarding revocation of donations.