In July 2001, Zimnat (defendant) introduced its Cash Pal investment policy to Wedzera Petroleum (plaintiff). On 4 July 2001, Wedzera made a proposal for two policies, which Zimnat accepted. The policies had monthly premiums of $500,000 each, running from 1 July 2001 to 1 July 2011, with a guaranteed maturity value of $487,195,971 per policy. Clause 11 of the policy documents prohibited cession of benefits. However, Zimnat's executive agent, assistant manager, provincial manager, and general manager made written representations to Wedzera assuring that the policies could be ceded as security and confirming that the Investment Fund was the same as the Guaranteed Maturity Value. Relying on these assurances, Wedzera applied for loans from Barclays Bank and Stanbic Bank, intending to cede part of the policy benefits as security. Zimnat then refused to allow cession, asserting that its agents had misconstrued the policy terms and relying on clause 11. Wedzera sued, arguing the representations formed part of the contract and amounted to novation. After Wedzera presented its case through its chief operations officer, Zimnat applied for absolution from the instance.
The application for absolution from the instance was dismissed, and the case was allowed to proceed to the defendant's case.
Where parties to a contract do not treat a written document as constituting the entire agreement between them, as evidenced by their conduct in negotiating variations and additions to the written terms, the parol evidence rule does not prevent consideration of extrinsic evidence to prove the actual terms of the contract. Representations made by senior officials of a company acting within the course and scope of their employment bind the company, and the company cannot subsequently disavow those representations by claiming the officials misconstrued the contract terms. In applications for absolution from the instance, if there is sufficient evidence on which a court might reasonably find for the plaintiff, the application should be dismissed and the case allowed to proceed.
The court observed that in cases of doubt about what a reasonable court might do on an application for absolution from the instance, a judicial officer should always lean on the side of allowing the case to proceed. The court also commented that the willingness of Zimnat to make numerous amendments to the policy document demonstrated it did not regard the document as the entire agreement, which is why it was "so willing to make so many amendments to the document."
This case is significant in Zimbabwean contract law (though heard in Zimbabwe, the legal principles are relevant to South African jurisprudence given the shared legal heritage) for its interpretation of the parol evidence rule and when a written contract constitutes the entire agreement between parties. It establishes that parties' conduct can demonstrate that a written document was not intended to be the complete memorial of their agreement, thereby allowing extrinsic evidence to prove additional terms or variations. The case also addresses the authority of senior company officials to bind their employer through representations made in the course of their employment, and reinforces the principle that in applications for absolution from the instance, courts should lean toward allowing cases to proceed when there is doubt about what a reasonable court might decide.