The Methodist Church of Zimbabwe v Georgina Mazendame (In her capacity as Executrix dative of the Estate of the late Simeon Trusty Mateta)

In April 2000, the Methodist Church of Zimbabwe (applicant) entered into an agreement of sale with the late Simeon Mateta to purchase property (Lot 28 Clovelly Township of Glyn Tor, Masvingo) for Z$600,000. The applicant paid Z$105,000 to Barclays Bank and Z$49,000 to Founders Building Society to cancel mortgage bonds and uplift caveats on the property, plus Z$49,760 in conveyancing fees. The agreement stipulated that the balance would be paid directly to the seller upon transfer. Due to title deed issues unrelated to the applicant, transfer could not be effected immediately. The applicant took vacant possession in December 2000. Mateta died in December 2000 before transfer was completed. His widow, Georgina Mazendame (first respondent), initially acknowledged in correspondence (including a letter dated 16 February 2001) that payment would be made upon transfer, but later sought to cancel the agreement. In April 2003, an entity called Bhadala Debts attempted to cancel the agreement on behalf of the widow, claiming Mateta was mentally unstable when he signed. In May 2003, they deposited Z$175,000 as a "refund" into a church branch account without the national office's knowledge. The church denied any valid cancellation and sought specific performance, offering to pay the balance in US dollars based on current market value.

• Whether the applicant's amendment to reflect payment in US dollars (rather than the defunct Zimbabwean dollar) should be granted despite being raised in the answering affidavit rather than the founding affidavit
• Whether the applicant had tendered performance as required for specific performance
• Whether the agreement of sale was validly cancelled by the purported refund of the deposit
• Whether the agreement was vitiated by the seller's alleged mental incapacity at the time of contracting
• Whether the first respondent's counterclaim for rentals was procedurally compliant with Rule 229A of the High Court Rules

1. The first and second respondents were ordered to sign all documents necessary to effect transfer of the property to the applicant and deliver the Deed of Transfer to the applicant's legal practitioners. 2. If the respondents refused to sign within 24 hours of service, the Deputy Sheriff was authorized to depose to same. 3. The applicant was ordered to pay the balance of the purchase price of US$51,660.00, less any Capital Gains Withholding Tax, to the first respondent upon registration of transfer. 4. The first respondent was ordered to pay costs of suit.

The binding legal principles established are: (1) Where an agreement of sale remains valid and the purchaser has fulfilled their initial obligations, specific performance can be ordered even where the currency of payment has changed from Zimbabwean dollars to US dollars, with payment calculated based on current market value; (2) A purported cancellation of a contract and refund of deposit does not constitute valid cancellation where: (a) there was no lawful ground for cancellation, (b) the refund was made without the other party's knowledge or acceptance, (c) the refund occurred during hyperinflation and did not represent true value, and (d) the purchaser had already performed their part of the agreement; (3) For specific performance, a purchaser must have fulfilled or be ready to fulfill their obligations, but where the agreement stipulates that balance payment is due only upon transfer, and delays in transfer are not attributable to the purchaser, the purchaser is not required to have paid the full purchase price before seeking the order; (4) Allegations of mental incapacity vitiating a contract require credible evidence, and bare assertions contradicted by contemporaneous correspondence and conduct will not create a genuine dispute of fact requiring referral to trial; (5) Counterclaims must strictly comply with Rule 229A and be in the form of either a court application or chamber application - non-compliance cannot be condoned where the format used does not comply with any rule.

The court made several non-binding observations: (1) Courts have increasingly faced cases where individuals who genuinely entered into agreements of sale during the Zimbabwean dollar era have "simply turned coat for the love of money" given the increase in property values in US dollar terms; (2) The use of alternative dispute resolution methods such as mediation and negotiation is not unusual, particularly where a church is involved, as such institutions may regard courts as peripheral rather than core to dispute resolution and view consensual approaches as less confrontational and more appropriate; (3) Where a party seeks to file affidavits at unusual stages in proceedings due to genuine developments (such as settlement negotiations), and if properly applied for, the court would likely allow a fourth affidavit to avoid prejudice, though such application should be made; (4) The widow's attempt to obtain early payment of the balance by claiming financial hardship (as evidenced in her February 2001 letter) demonstrated her acknowledgment of the validity of the agreement and her awareness that payment was only due upon transfer.

This case is significant for several reasons in Zimbabwean jurisprudence: (1) It addresses the transition from Zimbabwean dollar obligations to US dollar payments in contracts made during the hyperinflation period, establishing that courts can grant orders in foreign currency where the original currency is no longer operational; (2) It reinforces the principle that parties cannot unilaterally cancel valid agreements of sale without lawful grounds, particularly where one party has already performed their obligations; (3) It demonstrates the court's approach to allegations of mental incapacity in contract formation, requiring credible evidence rather than bare assertions; (4) It illustrates the practical application of specific performance remedies where property agreements remain unfulfilled due to circumstances beyond the purchaser's control; (5) It clarifies procedural requirements for counterclaims under Rule 229A of the High Court Rules, emphasizing strict compliance with prescribed forms; (6) It serves as a warning against attempts to escape disadvantageous agreements entered into during the Zimbabwean dollar era by manufacturing disputes or false allegations.