The respondent instituted a claim against the applicant based on a "joint audit report" which allegedly confirmed that her account was in credit in the sum of $90,697.55. The applicant sought further and better particulars regarding this joint audit report, as the respondent had not produced such a report showing how the claimed figure was arrived at. The applicant contended that the report tendered by the respondent was in fact her own audit report, not a joint audit report. The respondent opposed the application, asserting that she did not have a joint audit report but rather had an audit report which she referred to as "joint" based on engagements between the parties. The document itself was not named as a joint audit report.
The application was granted. The respondent was ordered to provide the particulars as requested, meaning she must either supply the joint audit report if one exists, or clarify in her pleadings that there is no joint audit report but only an audit report prepared at her instance and later adopted by the parties. Costs were awarded in the cause.
Where a party's claim is based on a specific document described in the pleadings (such as a "joint audit report"), and the existence or nature of that document is disputed, the party must either produce the document as pleaded or clearly explain in their pleadings if no such document exists and what alternative document forms the basis of the claim. The defendant is entitled to have clarity on such fundamental issues before being required to plead to the claim. Misleading pleadings regarding foundational documents justify an order for further and better particulars.
The court observed that the matter was "a simple and straightforward matter" that required the plaintiff to either explain that there was no joint audit report and that an audit report was prepared at her instance which the parties later adopted, or to attach a joint audit report if one existed. The court emphasized that clarity on this aspect was crucial before the defendant should be required to plead to the claim.
This case illustrates the importance of precision and clarity in pleadings in Zimbabwean civil procedure. It establishes that parties must be accurate in describing documents that form the basis of their claims, and that where fundamental documents are referenced in pleadings, their true nature and existence must be clearly stated to enable the opposing party to properly plead. The case reinforces the court's willingness to compel further and better particulars where pleadings are misleading or unclear about foundational documents.