Timothy Nkomo v City of Bulawayo and Front Hunk Marketing (Pvt) Ltd

The applicant was allocated industrial stand number 15357, Kelvin North, Bulawayo by the City of Bulawayo on 27 January 2011 (though the applicant claimed the agreement was from 27 April 1998). The purchase price was $85,000 with a deposit of $21,250 paid. The agreement required the applicant to commence building worth $425,000 within 6 months and complete it within 24 months. The applicant failed to develop the stand for 14 years, despite being granted an extension from June 2006 to 31 May 2007. The respondent repossessed the stand and allocated it to another person who began construction. In November 2011, the respondent resolved that the repossession was irregular and reallocated the stand to the applicant. However, in January 2012, the respondent rescinded this resolution and repossessed the stand for the second time. The applicant sought review of this decision.

• Whether the respondent's decision to repossess the stand was lawful given the applicant's failure to comply with building conditions
• Whether the applicant was afforded adequate opportunity to defend his title to the stand before repossession
• Whether the respondent acted lawfully in rescinding its resolution of 2 November 2011 under section 89(1)(b) of the Urban Councils Act Chapter 29:15
• Whether there were grounds for reviewing the respondent's administrative decision on the basis of procedural fairness

The application for review was dismissed with costs at attorney and client scale.

A local authority acting under the Urban Councils Act Chapter 29:15 is entitled to repossess land where the purchaser has materially breached the conditions of allocation, particularly building requirements. Section 89(1)(b) of the Urban Councils Act empowers a local authority to rescind its own resolutions where necessary to correct erroneous decisions. Where notice of breach and intended repossession has been sent to the address provided by the purchaser in the agreement, the purchaser cannot successfully claim a denial of the right to be heard. A party who is the author of their own problems through prolonged non-compliance with contractual obligations has no basis to challenge administrative action taken in accordance with agreed terms.

The court observed that the applicant provided no evidence suggesting any attempt at compliance with the building conditions, and noted the inconsistency in the applicant's position given that another party had purchased the stand and commenced development without the applicant's apparent knowledge or objection. The court remarked that the applicant "was the author of his problems and cannot now blame the respondent for the loss of the stand," emphasizing the principle that parties cannot benefit from their own defaults.

This case demonstrates the Zimbabwean courts' approach to reviewing local authority decisions regarding land allocation and repossession. It confirms that municipalities have power under section 89(1)(b) of the Urban Councils Act to rescind their own resolutions where necessary to correct errors. The case emphasizes that parties who fail to comply with material contractual conditions, particularly building requirements attached to land allocations, cannot successfully challenge repossession on procedural fairness grounds where adequate notice was given. The award of costs on an attorney and client scale reflects the court's view of the lack of merit in the application.