supervening impossibilitycapital gains taxagreement of saleevictionrei vindicatio
Tags
immovable propertyagreement of saleevictionsupervening impossibility
legislation
Statutes Cited
Capital Gains Tax Act
ai analysis
Case Summary
Key Issues
{"issue_text":"Whether the court a quo erred in finding the contract could not be performed due to supervening impossibility","issue_type":"mixed","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"ZIMRA's refusal to issue CGT assessment; parties' efforts to comply"}
{"issue_text":"Whether the court a quo erred in finding the contract had been properly cancelled","issue_type":"law","dispositive":"no","related_facts":"Respondent's return of purchase price; clause 7 of agreement"}
{"issue_text":"Whether the court a quo erred in dismissing the counterclaim without determining the declarateur","issue_type":"procedural","dispositive":"no","related_facts":"Court's finding on supervening impossibility"}
This summary was generated by AI. Use Zalari to read the full judgment.
background
Facts of the Case
Background
The parties entered into an agreement of sale for immovable property in 2006. The respondent gave vacant possession to the appellant who paid the purchase price. Transfer could not be effected because ZIMRA refused to issue a Capital Gains Tax assessment, claiming the purchase price was too low. The respondent later returned the purchase price and sought eviction. The High Court granted eviction, finding supervening impossibility. The appellant appealed.
Read the full judgment, get AI analysis, and find related cases