A US$70,000 land deal dating back more than two decades has collapsed after the High Court dismissed a buyer’s claim for transfer of two residential plots, ruling that the original agreement was illegal and therefore unenforceable from the outset.
In a judgement delivered by Justice Mpokiseng Dube sitting in Bulawayo, the court dismissed a claim by Benson Mufandaedza, who had sought transfer of two subdivided plots at Woodville Estate from the estate of the late Admos Nyamande Ndlovu.
Mufandaedza argued that he had fully paid the agreed purchase price of US$70,000 in installments between September 1997 and November 1998 and had occupied and developed the land for over two decades.
He told the court he constructed a seven-roomed house, installed boreholes, and established a horticultural project on the property.
However, the court found that the original agreement of sale was concluded before a subdivision permit had been granted, in breach of the Regional, Town and Country Planning Act. The permit was only issued in January 1998, after the agreement had already been signed.
Related Stories
Justice Dube ruled that such an agreement is “null and void ab initio,” meaning it has no legal effect from the beginning, and cannot be enforced.
The court also rejected the plaintiff’s argument that a later verbal understanding or addendum validated the transaction, holding that “an addendum cannot create validity which the original contract never had.”
The dispute was further complicated by changes to the subdivision diagram approved by authorities, which altered the numbering and positioning of the plots. The court noted that the land the plaintiff occupied did not correspond with the lots described in the approved plan, making it impossible to compel transfer.
The defendant, Karamba Kapondoro, who is the executor of the late Ndlovu’s estate, successfully argued that the claim could not stand in law and applied for absolution after the plaintiff closed his case.
Applying established legal principles, the court found that the plaintiff had failed to establish a prima facie case that could justify proceeding to full trial.
"The plaintiff's claim cannot succeed in light of the prevailing legal position. In Tswama v Hondo & Ors (supra) at page 6, it is confirmed that what is done in contravention of an Act of Parliament cannot be made the subject of an action, and accordingly, the Court has no equitable jurisdiction to grant relief to a plaintiff seeking to enforce a contract prohibited by law,” Justice Dube said.
The application for absolution from the instance was granted with costs, effectively bringing the matter to an end without requiring the defendant to present evidence.
Leave Comments