The respondent owned Mangula Farms (Private) Limited and sold its entire issued share capital to Nyahondo Estates (Private) Limited in January 1996 for $2.1 million, payable in eight annual instalments of $250,000 each from June 1997 to June 2004. Nyahondo was owned by Gary James Dodd, the appellant's son-in-law. Only the first instalment was paid before Nyahondo went into liquidation. The respondent sued the appellant, alleging she had verbally guaranteed all of Nyahondo's obligations under the sale agreement. The sale agreement contained a clause providing for security including "a personal guarantee signed by Mrs S Forrester together with the other shareholders of the purchasing company," but no separate guarantee document was ever signed. The appellant denied ever giving such a guarantee. The High Court found in favour of the respondent, and the appellant appealed.
The appeal succeeded with costs. The High Court judgment was set aside and substituted with an order dismissing the plaintiff's (respondent's) claim and ordering the plaintiff to pay the costs of suit.
To establish the existence of a verbal guarantee or suretyship, the party alleging it must prove through credible evidence that the alleged surety actually agreed to provide the guarantee. The burden of proof requires more than vague recollections or secondhand information; there must be clear evidence of when, where, how, and to whom the guarantee was given. Uncertain evidence using qualifiers such as "I think," "I believe," or "I am not certain" is insufficient to discharge this burden. The mere inclusion of a person's name in a security clause of an agreement, without that person's knowledge, participation, or consent, does not create a binding obligation of suretyship.
The Court observed that even if Mrs Forrester had not immediately denied liability upon receiving a letter of demand, this would not constitute proof of admission. The fact that her legal response came six weeks later does not prove anything about the existence of the guarantee. The Court also noted that even if witnesses give their evidence in a credible manner, credibility alone does not establish the facts necessary to prove a claim if the substantive evidence of those facts is lacking.
This case is significant in Zimbabwean and potentially South African jurisprudence for establishing the strict evidentiary standards required to prove a verbal contract of suretyship. It demonstrates that the burden of proof lies heavily on the party alleging the existence of a guarantee, and that vague, uncertain, or secondhand evidence is insufficient to establish that a person agreed to stand surety for another's debts. The case reinforces the principle that suretyship is a serious undertaking that requires clear evidence of agreement, particularly when no written document exists. It serves as a warning to creditors and their legal advisors about the importance of properly documenting guarantees and obtaining direct confirmation from alleged sureties.