The first applicant (Swindale Properties) leased stand 1089 Tynwald, Harare to the respondent. The first applicant subsequently sought to evict the respondent from the property. The respondent obtained an interdict from the Magistrates Court preventing the applicants from unlawfully evicting her and ordering them not to disturb her peaceful possession pending termination of the lease agreement. The applicants noted an appeal against the magistrate's decision and served notice on the respondent's legal practitioners. The applicants alleged that the respondent then forcibly reoccupied the property in contempt of court, claiming the appeal suspended the magistrate's order. The respondent denied this, maintaining she was always in lawful occupation on a rent-to-buy basis and had not abandoned the property.
The application for contempt of court was dismissed with costs.
Where an application for contempt of court discloses serious and irreconcilable disputes of fact between the parties, such disputes cannot be resolved on motion proceedings and the application must fail. Such matters should be brought by way of action to allow for viva voce evidence. Where a court has granted an interdict protecting a tenant's peaceful possession and occupation of property, the tenant is entitled to remain in occupation pending an appeal against that interdict order, and such occupation does not constitute contempt of court.
The court observed that a reasonable magistrate would have been satisfied before issuing the interdict order that there was an agreement of lease or at least that the respondent was in peaceful and undisturbed possession of the property. The court noted that the magistrate's order did not purport to determine the ultimate rights of the parties, which were properly left to be determined in a different forum in terms of the lease agreement. The court also observed that the applicants' detailed averments about alleged breaches of the lease agreement by the respondent were irrelevant to the contempt application, which hinged solely on whether the respondent was in contempt of court in view of the pending appeal.
This case is significant in Zimbabwean (not South African) civil procedure as it demonstrates the principle that contempt of court applications involving material disputes of fact cannot be resolved on motion proceedings and require action proceedings with viva voce evidence. It also clarifies that where a tenant is in lawful occupation pursuant to a court order interdicting eviction, the tenant is entitled to remain in occupation pending an appeal and such occupation does not constitute contempt of court. The case reinforces procedural requirements for eviction, namely that removal of a lawful occupier requires either consent or a court order.