Makomborero Muza v Zimbabwe Posts (Pvt) Ltd T/A Zimpost and Zimpost Properties (Pvt) Ltd T/A Post Properties

In 2019, the first respondent, through its subsidiary the second respondent, entered into a renewable two-year lease agreement with the appellant for shop number B7 at Harare Main Post Office. The agreed rental was US$300 per month, exclusive of VAT and operation costs. On 2 March 2023, the parties extended the lease to 31 December 2023 by addendum, with rentals at US$347.50 per month. The appellant failed to pay monthly rentals as agreed. After giving 14 days' notice to remedy the breach on 14 November 2023, which the appellant failed to cure, the respondents cancelled the lease agreement. The respondents then sued for eviction, arrear rentals of US$4,416.25, and holding over damages of US$347.50 per month. The appellant defended the action, claiming the agreed rentals were ZW$300, not US$300, and that he had an oral agreement with the respondents to set off rentals against US$9,000 in improvements he made to the shop following burglaries. The appellant counterclaimed for US$9,000 for these improvements. The magistrates' court found in favour of the respondents on 7 January 2025, granting eviction, arrear rentals, holding over damages, and dismissing the counterclaim. The appellant appealed to the High Court.

• Whether the court a quo erred in ordering eviction without first ordering confirmation of cancellation of the lease agreement
• Whether the court a quo erred in finding that there was no set-off agreement and in disregarding the appellant's counterclaim for improvements
• Whether the court a quo erred in granting the amounts claimed as outstanding rentals and holding over damages
• Whether a verbal agreement for improvements was proven on a balance of probabilities
• Whether eviction summons itself constitutes sufficient notice of cancellation of a lease agreement

1. The appeal is hereby refused. 2. The appellant shall pay the respondents' costs at an ordinary scale.

The binding legal principles established are: (1) An eviction summons for non-payment of rent constitutes sufficient notice of cancellation of a lease agreement - no separate order confirming cancellation is required as a prerequisite to eviction; (2) A party alleging the existence of a verbal/oral agreement bears the onus of proving all essential elements of a valid contract (offer, acceptance, consideration, capacity, intention to create legal relations, and agreement on terms) on a balance of probabilities; (3) Where a written lease agreement contains an integration clause stating it constitutes the entire agreement between parties, prior or contemporaneous oral agreements are superseded unless expressly preserved in writing; (4) Holding over damages are calculated based on the rental amount that would be payable by a lawful tenant under the lease agreement; (5) A tenant cannot claim set-off against rent for improvements made without written consent where the lease agreement expressly requires such consent and provides that improvements are at the tenant's account.

The court made non-binding observations that: (1) The appellant's impatience may have led him to make improvements without express authority from the respondents; (2) The email correspondence relied upon by the appellant was insufficient as it was one-way communication with no response, and the extent of permitted improvements (if any) was unclear; (3) The receipts for improvements did not clearly show payments were made in US dollars, which was relevant given the legal framework under SI 33/2019 regarding currency denomination; (4) The fact that the appellant continued to pay some rentals in US dollars despite claiming the agreed rentals were in ZW$ undermined his version of events; (5) If there truly had been a prior oral agreement regarding set-off for improvements, the appellant should have insisted on clause 27 (the integration clause) being worded differently when signing the 2019 written lease agreement.

This case is significant in Zimbabwean (and relevant by analogy to South African) property and lease law for several propositions: (1) It confirms that an eviction summons based on non-payment of rent is itself sufficient notice of cancellation of a lease agreement - there is no requirement to obtain a separate order confirming cancellation before seeking eviction; (2) It reinforces the strict requirements for proving oral/verbal agreements, particularly that the party alleging such an agreement must prove all essential elements of a valid contract (offer, acceptance, intention to create legal relations, consideration) on a balance of probabilities; (3) It emphasizes the importance of integration clauses (entire agreement clauses) in written contracts, which supersede prior oral agreements unless expressly preserved; (4) It confirms that holding over damages mirror the rental amount that would be received from a lawful tenant; (5) It demonstrates that tenants cannot unilaterally effect improvements and claim set-off against rent where the lease agreement requires written consent for alterations and specifies that such improvements are at the tenant's account. The case provides useful guidance on the interplay between written lease terms and alleged oral side agreements.