In 1996, the Zimbabwean government introduced a "Start paying for your house scheme" where persons made monthly contributions. Beneficiaries in Tynwald Lot 14 formed an association (the applicant). When the government faced difficulties fulfilling construction obligations, a tripartite agreement was entered on 19 June 2008 involving the association, Life Ministry Zimbabwe (as developer), and the Minister. The developer was to raise finance, prepare tender documents, provide infrastructure (roads, water, sewage, electricity) and recover costs from beneficiaries, with 217 security stands provided by the Minister to cover any shortfall. The developer failed to complete works by the stipulated date (30 November 2010). The association advanced USD 87,086 to assist but refused further payments, arguing payment was only due upon completion. The developer sold some security stands and demanded payment of USD 276,989 from the association's members. Two applications were brought: the association seeking declaratory relief that the developer breached the agreement and was not entitled to payment before completion; and the developer seeking specific performance requiring payment during construction.
1. The applicant's application in HC 10642/14 was dismissed with costs. 2. The first respondent's counter application (HC 4954/15) was granted: (a) The applicant's members are obliged to pay infrastructure construction costs during the currency of construction and must meet reasonable charges raised by the first respondent; (b) The applicant's members shall pay USD 276,989.00 to the first respondent; (c) Costs to be borne by the applicant.
1. In interpreting contracts, the court must ascertain the common intention of the parties from the language used in its context, considering the nature and purpose of the contract and background circumstances. 2. Where a contract requires submission of a list of "paid up beneficiaries" during the currency of the agreement, this demonstrates the parties intended payment to occur during performance, not only after completion. 3. A party who has caused the other to commit a breach cannot found a claim on that breach - a party failing to perform its own obligations cannot seek relief based on the other party's failure to complete performance. 4. Security provisions in development agreements are intended to cushion the developer against risk and subsidies provided, not to indemnify beneficiaries from their primary payment obligations. 5. A bill of quantities prepared by a developer, showing subsidized costs, constitutes adequate basis for a claim for payment where the contract contemplates payment of "subsidized costs to be determined by the developer."
The court observed that the applicant's apprehension about misuse of members' funds could have been easily allayed by accepting the first respondent's offer to have applicant's members serve on a committee overseeing the project, which showed sincerity on the developer's part. The court also noted that the conduct of the applicant in refusing to pay had only served to delay completion of the project to the prejudice of its own members and the respondents. The court commented that had each party fulfilled its obligations, the objective would have been realized without court intervention, but "an element of intransigence or suspicion of each other seems to have crept in and adversely affected the attainment of the objective." Regarding the security stands, the court observed that any claim for excess proceeds would properly lie with the second respondent (the Minister who provided the stands) rather than the applicant.
This case is significant in Zimbabwean contract law (and potentially relevant to South African jurisprudence given similar legal principles) for: (1) demonstrating the application of contextual interpretation principles to complex tripartite agreements; (2) establishing that payment obligations in development agreements may arise during the currency of the agreement rather than only upon completion, particularly where the contract contemplates ongoing monitoring of "paid up" beneficiaries; (3) affirming the principle that a party cannot rely on breach caused by its own failure to perform (exceptio non adimpleti contractus); (4) clarifying that security arrangements do not necessarily indemnify a party from its primary contractual obligations; and (5) illustrating the court's discretion to grant specific performance where it would achieve the parties' common objective and no hardship is demonstrated.