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

Tinashe Mangena and Ndenda Asidi v Marvellous Shumba and Arkrite Holdings (Pvt) Ltd and Registrar of Deeds N.O. and The Sheriff of the High Court N.O.

HCC 57/25

Case Details

Court
Chinhoyi High Court
Date
15 September 2025
Citation
HCC 57/25
Neutral Citation
[2025] ZWHCC 57
Outcome
unknown
Case Type
Application

Bench

Presiding
BACHI MZAWAZI J
Full Bench
BACHI MZAWAZI J
Areas of Law
Contract LawProperty LawCivil Procedure
Keywords
specific performancerepudiationcancellationinstalment sale agreementtransfer of title
Tags
immovable propertyinstalment salespecific performancecontract law
legislation
Statutes Cited
  • T
  • h
  • i
  • s
  • j
  • u
  • d
  • g
  • m
  • e
  • n
  • t
  • d
  • o
  • e
  • s
  • n
  • o
  • t
  • c
  • i
  • t
  • e
  • a
  • n
  • y
  • s
  • p
  • e
  • c
  • i
  • f
  • i
  • c
  • s
  • t
  • a
  • t
  • u
  • t
  • e
  • s
  • .
  • I
  • t
  • r
  • e
  • l
  • i
  • e
  • s
  • e
  • n
  • t
  • i
  • r
  • e
  • l
  • y
  • o
  • n
  • c
  • o
  • m
  • m
  • o
  • n
  • l
  • a
  • w
  • p
  • r
  • i
  • n
  • c
  • i
  • p
  • l
  • e
  • s
  • o
  • f
  • c
  • o
  • n
  • t
  • r
  • a
  • c
  • t
  • a
  • n
  • d
  • p
  • r
  • o
  • p
  • e
  • r
  • t
  • y
  • l
  • a
  • w
  • .
  • #
  • #
  • O
  • T
  • H
  • E
  • R
  • A
  • U
  • T
  • H
  • O
  • R
  • I
  • T
  • I
  • E
  • S
ai analysis
Case Summary

Key Issues

  • {"issue_text":"Whether the relief of specific performance is available to the applicants given the provisions of clause 9 of the parties' agreement of sale","issue_type":"law","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"All facts regarding the contract, payment, repudiation, and clause 9"}
This summary was generated by AI. Use Zalari to read the full judgment.
background
Facts of the Case

Background

The applicants entered into an instalment sale agreement with the 1st respondent for a property, paid the full purchase price, and were given vacant possession. The 1st respondent, who represents the 2nd respondent, repudiated the contract at the final stage of transfer, citing clause 9 of the agreement which allows for refund upon failure to effect transfer. The applicants rejected the repudiation and sought specific performance.
Read the full judgment, get AI analysis, and find related cases
Open in Zalari →