Back to top
Zalari has raised $2 million USD in a founding round led by Nyamaropa Technologies
Harare High Court

Jane Constance Marumahoko and Clifford Daniel Goremusandu and Grace Chuma Sande

HH 203-11

Case Details

Court
Harare High Court
Date
21 October 2011
Citation
HH 203-11
Neutral Citation
[2011] ZWHH 203
Outcome
unknown
Case Type
Trial

Bench

Presiding
Karwi J
Full Bench
Karwi J
Areas of Law
Property lawContract law
Keywords
Double saleImmovable propertyAgreement of saleCancellationTransferSpecific performance
Tags
Double saleImmovable propertyContract cancellationSpecific performance
legislation
Statutes Cited
  • P
  • o
  • l
  • i
  • c
  • e
  • a
  • n
  • d
  • C
  • r
  • i
  • m
  • i
  • n
  • a
  • l
  • E
  • v
  • i
  • d
  • e
  • n
  • c
  • e
  • A
  • c
  • t
  • 1
  • 9
  • 8
  • 4
  • H
  • u
  • m
  • a
  • n
  • R
  • i
  • g
  • h
  • t
  • s
  • A
  • c
  • t
  • 1
  • 9
  • 9
  • 8
  • E
  • u
  • r
  • o
  • p
  • e
  • a
  • n
  • C
  • o
  • n
  • v
  • e
  • n
  • t
  • i
  • o
  • n
  • o
  • n
  • H
  • u
  • m
  • a
  • n
  • R
  • i
  • g
  • h
  • t
  • s
  • R
  • e
  • g
  • u
  • l
  • a
  • t
  • i
  • o
  • n
  • o
  • f
  • I
  • n
  • v
  • e
  • s
  • t
  • i
  • g
  • a
  • t
  • o
  • r
  • y
  • P
  • o
  • w
  • e
  • r
  • s
  • A
  • c
  • t
  • 2
  • 0
  • 0
  • 0
  • S
  • e
  • r
  • i
  • o
  • u
  • s
  • O
  • r
  • g
  • a
  • n
  • i
  • s
  • e
  • d
  • C
  • r
  • i
  • m
  • e
  • a
  • n
  • d
  • P
  • o
  • l
  • i
  • c
  • e
  • A
  • c
  • t
  • 2
  • 0
  • 0
  • 5
  • C
  • r
  • i
  • m
  • i
  • n
  • a
  • l
  • A
  • p
  • p
  • e
  • a
  • l
  • A
  • c
  • t
  • 1
  • 9
  • 9
  • 5
  • C
  • r
  • i
  • m
  • i
  • n
  • a
  • l
  • P
  • r
  • o
  • c
  • e
  • d
  • u
  • r
  • e
  • a
  • n
  • d
  • I
  • n
  • v
  • e
  • s
  • t
  • i
  • g
  • a
  • t
  • i
  • o
  • n
  • s
  • A
  • c
  • t
  • 1
  • 9
  • 9
  • 6
  • T
  • e
  • r
  • r
  • o
  • r
  • i
  • s
  • m
  • A
  • c
  • t
  • 2
  • 0
  • 0
  • 0
  • T
  • e
  • r
  • r
  • o
  • r
  • i
  • s
  • m
  • A
  • c
  • t
  • 2
  • 0
  • 0
  • 6
  • P
  • r
  • o
  • c
  • e
  • e
  • d
  • s
  • o
  • f
  • C
  • r
  • i
  • m
  • e
  • A
  • c
  • t
  • 2
  • 0
  • 0
  • 2
  • C
  • r
  • i
  • m
  • e
  • a
  • n
  • d
  • S
  • e
  • c
  • u
  • r
  • i
  • t
  • y
  • A
  • c
  • t
  • 2
  • 0
  • 0
  • 1
  • E
  • x
  • t
  • r
  • a
  • d
  • i
  • t
  • i
  • o
  • n
  • A
  • c
  • t
  • 2
  • 0
  • 0
  • 3
  • C
  • r
  • i
  • m
  • i
  • n
  • a
  • l
  • J
  • u
  • s
  • t
  • i
  • c
  • e
  • A
  • c
  • t
  • 1
  • 9
  • 8
  • 8
  • C
  • r
  • i
  • m
  • i
  • n
  • a
  • l
  • J
  • u
  • s
  • t
  • i
  • c
  • e
  • a
  • n
  • d
  • P
  • u
  • b
  • l
  • i
  • c
  • O
  • r
  • d
  • e
  • r
  • A
  • c
  • t
  • 1
  • 9
  • 9
  • 4
  • C
  • r
  • i
  • m
  • i
  • n
  • a
  • l
  • J
  • u
  • s
  • t
  • i
  • c
  • e
  • A
  • c
  • t
  • 2
  • 0
  • 0
  • 3
  • S
  • e
  • r
  • i
  • o
  • u
  • s
  • C
  • r
  • i
  • m
  • e
  • A
  • c
  • t
  • 2
  • 0
  • 0
  • 7
  • C
  • o
  • r
  • o
  • n
  • e
  • r
  • s
  • a
  • n
  • d
  • J
  • u
  • s
  • t
  • i
  • c
  • e
  • A
  • c
  • t
  • 2
  • 0
  • 0
  • 9
  • L
  • e
  • g
  • a
  • l
  • A
  • i
  • d
  • ,
  • S
  • e
  • n
  • t
  • e
  • n
  • c
  • i
  • n
  • g
  • a
  • n
  • d
  • P
  • u
  • n
  • i
  • s
  • h
  • m
  • e
  • n
  • t
  • o
  • f
  • O
  • f
  • f
  • e
  • n
  • d
  • e
  • r
  • s
  • A
  • c
  • t
  • 2
  • 0
  • 1
  • 2
  • I
  • n
  • v
  • e
  • s
  • t
  • i
  • g
  • a
  • t
  • o
  • r
  • y
  • P
  • o
  • w
  • e
  • r
  • s
  • A
  • c
  • t
  • 2
  • 0
  • 1
  • 6
ai analysis
Case Summary

Key Issues

  • {"issue_text":"Whether the first defendant duly cancelled the Deed of Sale between him and the plaintiff","issue_type":"mixed","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"No evidence of breach by plaintiff; no notice given; payments continued"}
  • {"issue_text":"Whether the plaintiff tampered with the terms of the Deed of Sale","issue_type":"fact","dispositive":"no","related_facts":"No evidence of tampering produced"}
  • {"issue_text":"Whether the first defendant contracted a fresh agreement of sale with the second defendant","issue_type":"mixed","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Second defendant could not specify when; court application still extant"}
  • {"issue_text":"Whether there is an equitable basis upon which the second defendant is entitled to receive transfer of the property","issue_type":"law","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"No valid contract found for second defendant"}
This summary was generated by AI. Use Zalari to read the full judgment.
background
Facts of the Case

Background

The plaintiff and second defendant both claimed ownership of the same immovable property (Lot 96 Athlone Township) which they had allegedly purchased from the first defendant. The first defendant died in 2003 before trial. Both ladies claimed to have entered into agreements of sale with the first defendant in September 2000, with the plaintiff taking occupation on 1 October 2000.
Read the full judgment, get AI analysis, and find related cases
Open in Zalari →