Tsitsi Manomano v Micro-Teaching Computer Systems (Pvt) Ltd and City of Harare

The first respondent held a valid written lease agreement with the City of Harare (second respondent) over stand 40260 Belvedere, Harare, commencing in 2016 for a five-year period terminating in July 2021. The first respondent sought to evict the appellant who had occupied the premises since 2009 under an allocation letter from the City as an employee, with rentals being deducted from her salary. The first respondent needed to effect improvements to the leased premises as required by the City. The appellant refused to vacate, arguing that: (1) she had been allocated the house by the City of Harare; (2) she had occupied it for 10 years; (3) rentals were still being deducted from her salary; and (4) the first respondent's lease had been terminated by a council resolution. The City of Harare confirmed that the premises had been converted from residential to commercial use and that the appellant was aware of this commercialization. The Magistrates' Court granted the eviction order with costs, and the appellant appealed.

• Whether a council resolution alone was sufficient to terminate a written lease agreement without following the contractual procedures for termination
• Whether the first respondent had a valid lease agreement with the City of Harare entitling it to evict the appellant
• Whether the appellant's original allocation letter remained valid despite the premises being commercialized and leased to the first respondent
• Whether the same property could be validly leased to two different parties simultaneously

The appeal was dismissed with costs. The eviction order granted by the Magistrates' Court was upheld.

A council resolution alone does not terminate a written lease agreement where the resolution does not comply with the contractual termination procedures stipulated in the lease. Where there is a written lease agreement, the clauses spelling out the rights and obligations of the parties, including termination procedures, must be followed to give proper effect to any council resolution. The resolution provides only a framework for action but does not supersede contractual due process requirements. A valid lessee has the right to evict unauthorized occupants from leased premises in order to enjoy the benefit of the property under the lease. The same property cannot be simultaneously subject to two valid leases to different parties.

The court observed that the appellant's remedy for any grievances regarding continued deductions from her salary lay with the Administrative Court in terms of the Administrative Justice Act, since the City of Harare is an administrative authority. The court also noted that if the premises had been wrongly let to the first respondent, there was no evidence in the record that the appellant raised any anomaly at the time of the lease being granted to the first respondent in 2016.

This case establishes important principles regarding the relationship between council resolutions and written lease agreements in Zimbabwean property law. It clarifies that administrative decisions or council resolutions do not automatically override contractual obligations and that proper contractual termination procedures must be followed even where a resolution has been passed. The case also reinforces the principle that the same property cannot be validly leased to two different parties simultaneously, and that where premises are converted from one use to another (residential to commercial), previous allocation arrangements may be superseded. It demonstrates the proper allocation of remedies between civil courts (for eviction based on valid lease rights) and administrative courts (for challenging administrative decisions regarding salary deductions and employee housing allocations).