{"issue_text":"Whether appellant established prima facie case for tacit contract","issue_type":"mixed","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"No documentary evidence of agreement, no Board approval"}
{"issue_text":"Whether alleged tacit contract was illegal for non-compliance with procurement legislation","issue_type":"law","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Non-compliance with ss 30 and 32 of Procurement Act, no State Procurement Board approval"}
{"issue_text":"Whether respondent was unjustly enriched at appellant's expense","issue_type":"law","dispositive":"no","related_facts":"Appellant implemented ZOPS system, respondent benefited from system"}
This summary was generated by AI. Use Zalari to read the full judgment.
background
Facts of the Case
Background
The appellant claimed payment for developing and implementing the Zimbabwe Revenue Authority Online Payment System (ZOPS), alleging a tacit contract from 2011. The respondent disputed the contract's existence and legality, citing non-compliance with procurement laws.
Read the full judgment, get AI analysis, and find related cases