The plaintiff sued the defendant for payment of the Zimbabwean dollar equivalent of US$607,453.35, calculated at the interbank rate prevailing at the date of payment. The parties had been engaged in various construction contracts since 2017. The dispute related to work on a warehouse construction project involving steel structure, cladding, brick work and concrete floor. The plaintiff alleged the job was completed in May 2019 and it billed the defendant in June or July 2019, receiving only partial payment in RTGS$. The key issue for trial was whether the obligations arose before or after 22 February 2019 - a date significant for the interpretation of S.I. 33/19 regarding currency obligations. The plaintiff's witness Norman Zunzanyika testified that there was no written contract and admitted that a previous unpaid fee of $75,000 was deducted from the invoice. At the close of the plaintiff's case, the defendant applied for absolution from the instance.
1. Absolution from the instance is hereby granted to the defendant. 2. The plaintiff shall pay costs of suit.
To establish a prima facie case in a contract claim, the plaintiff must lead evidence regarding: (1) the existence of a valid contract; (2) the material terms of that contract, including payment terms; (3) breach or repudiation of the contract; (4) damages suffered; (5) a causal link between the breach and damages; and (6) loss that is not too remote. Where multiple contracts exist between parties and the timing of obligations is a material issue, the plaintiff must clearly distinguish between different contracts and establish when each specific obligation arose. Failure to provide such evidence means absolution from the instance should be granted, as it would be futile to require the defendant to answer a case that has not been established on a prima facie basis.
The court observed that courts are generally reluctant to grant absolution from the instance at the close of the plaintiff's case because this potentially infringes upon constitutionally protected rights including the right to equality, equal protection and benefit of the law, and the right to a fair hearing under sections 56(1) and 69 of the 2013 Constitution, as well as the right to be heard under natural justice principles. This is why the standard of proof at this stage is the less onerous one of establishing a prima facie case. The court also noted that the significance of 22 February 2019 relates to Supreme Court interpretation of S.I. 33/19 regarding currency obligations - debts accrued before this date are payable on a 1:1 basis between US and Zimbabwean currency, while debts after this date must be paid at the prevailing exchange rate.
This case illustrates the strict requirements for establishing a prima facie case in contract-based claims in Zimbabwean law, particularly where the date of contractual obligations is crucial for determining currency payment obligations under S.I. 33/19. It reinforces that even at the lower threshold of absolution from the instance at the close of the plaintiff's case, parties must provide clear evidence of contract formation, material terms, and the timing of obligations. The case is also significant for demonstrating judicial consideration of constitutional rights (fair hearing, equality before the law) when determining applications for absolution from the instance, balancing procedural efficiency against access to justice.