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

NJANIKE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY (PVT) LTD t/a ONE WAY BULDING CONTRACTORS’ CONSTRUCTION v TURNALL HOLDINGS LIMITED

HH 605-25

Case Details

Court
Harare High Court
Date
2 October 2025
Citation
HH 605-25
Neutral Citation
[2025] ZWHH 605
Outcome
unknown
Case Type
Application

Bench

Presiding
Mambara J
Full Bench
Mambara J
Areas of Law
Contract LawCommercial Law
Keywords
specific performancecontract formationcurrency conversionprescriptionbuilding materials
Tags
Contract LawSpecific PerformanceCurrency ChangesPrescription
legislation
Statutes Cited
  • Prescription Act
ai analysis
Case Summary

Key Issues

  • {"issue_text":"Whether a valid and enforceable contract was concluded between the parties in May 2018","issue_type":"mixed","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Proforma invoice issued, payment made, acknowledgment of payment"}
  • {"issue_text":"Whether the contract became perfecta and enforceable given the suspensive condition of delivery upon project commencement","issue_type":"law","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Agreement that delivery would occur when project commenced"}
  • {"issue_text":"Whether the respondent's defence of prescription has merit","issue_type":"law","dispositive":"no","related_facts":"Contract concluded 2018, demand made 2025, acknowledgment in 2022"}
  • {"issue_text":"Whether currency changes through SI 33 of 2019 and SI 60 of 2024 extinguished contractual obligations","issue_type":"law","dispositive":"no","related_facts":"Currency changes occurred after contract formation"}
  • {"issue_text":"Whether specific performance should be granted","issue_type":"law","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Applicant paid deposit, respondent refused delivery"}
This summary was generated by AI. Use Zalari to read the full judgment.
background
Facts of the Case

Background

The applicant, a construction company, entered into a contract with the respondent in May 2018 for the purchase of building materials. The applicant paid a substantial deposit of US$135,167.40, and delivery was to occur when the applicant's construction project commenced. When the applicant demanded delivery in 2025, the respondent refused, citing prescription, currency changes, and alleged non-performance by the applicant.
Read the full judgment, get AI analysis, and find related cases
Open in Zalari →