The Second Applicant (Wayne Williams) alleged he held 50% shares in the First Applicant company (Matebeleland Engineering), with the other 50% held by Gareth Fury. On 7 November 2012, Sarpo Investments (represented by First Respondent) entered into an agreement to purchase Fury's 50% shares, but allegedly only paid a deposit with the balance remaining outstanding. First Respondent was made a director but, according to Second Applicant, never became a shareholder. The parties' relationship soured in 2016. Prior litigation ensued including HCH 5514/23 and SC 970/18. In February 2025, First Respondent wrote to Ecobank Zimbabwe causing the company's bank accounts to be frozen, interdicted Third Applicant (Regis Maburutse) from acting as director, suspended one employee and reinstated another. Applicants approached the court urgently seeking a declaratory order that First Respondent was neither a director nor shareholder, and that his acts were null and void. First Respondent opposed, arguing inter alia that the matter involved material disputes of fact that could not be resolved through a declaratory order procedure.
The application was struck off the roll with costs on an ordinary scale in favor of the First Respondent.
A declaratory order is designed to resolve disputes over the existence of legal rights or obligations, not to determine disputed facts. Where material disputes of fact exist that cannot be resolved on the papers, an application for a declaratory order is not the appropriate procedure and the application must be struck off. In company law disputes involving questions of directorship and shareholding, where the parties dispute the underlying factual matrix (including whether share transfers were completed, whether resignations were valid, and whether documents were improperly altered), these factual issues cannot be determined through declaratory relief but require action proceedings where oral evidence can be led. An applicant who approaches the court through the wrong procedure where material factual disputes exist will have their application struck off the roll.
The court observed that costs on an attorney-client scale (higher scale) are awarded when a court wishes to mark its disapproval of a litigant's conduct, citing Orr v Solomon 1907 TS 281. However, the court noted that a finding of bad faith or reliance on fabricated documentation can only be made after evidence has been led to explain the factual issues, and such findings cannot be made merely on the strength of allegations in opposing papers in a case struck off for wrong procedure. The court also noted, without deciding, various other preliminary points raised by First Respondent including issues of proper authorization of the founding affidavit, urgency, res judicata, locus standi of the company in shareholding disputes, and exhaustion of domestic remedies, stating that one dispositive point made it unnecessary to deal with the others.
This case reinforces important principles in Zimbabwean civil procedure regarding the limitations of declaratory relief. It confirms that declaratory orders are inappropriate where material disputes of fact exist that cannot be resolved on the papers. The case illustrates the distinction between legal questions suitable for declaratory relief and factual disputes requiring oral evidence. It is significant for company law disputes, clarifying that questions of directorship and shareholding involving disputed factual narratives (such as share transfers, resignations, and document alteration) cannot be resolved through the declaratory order procedure but require action proceedings where evidence can be led. The judgment also provides guidance on when costs on a higher scale are appropriate, requiring establishment of bad faith or improper conduct rather than mere allegations.