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

Estate Late Canaan Moyo (represented by Lister Moyo as Executrix Testamentary) & Lister Moyo v Enoch Marezva & Stella Banda

HH 222-17

Case Details

Court
Harare High Court
Date
5 April 2017
Citation
HH 222-17
Neutral Citation
[2017] ZWHH 222
Outcome
unknown
Case Type
Trial

Bench

Presiding
TAGU J
Full Bench
TAGU J
Areas of Law
Property LawContract LawAdministrative Law
Keywords
Subdivision PermitAgreement of SaleRegional Town and Country Planning ActNullityRevocation
Tags
Property LawContract LawStatutory Compliance
legislation
Statutes Cited
  • 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
  • 1
  • 9
  • 5
  • 0
  • H
  • u
  • m
  • a
  • n
  • R
  • i
  • g
  • h
  • t
  • s
  • A
  • c
  • t
  • 1
  • 9
  • 9
  • 8
  • C
  • r
  • i
  • m
  • e
  • (
  • S
  • e
  • n
  • t
  • e
  • n
  • c
  • e
  • s
  • )
  • A
  • c
  • t
  • 1
  • 9
  • 9
  • 7
  • C
  • r
  • i
  • m
  • i
  • n
  • a
  • l
  • J
  • u
  • s
  • t
  • i
  • c
  • e
  • A
  • c
  • t
  • 2
  • 0
  • 0
  • 3
  • 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
  • O
  • f
  • f
  • e
  • n
  • d
  • e
  • r
  • R
  • e
  • h
  • a
  • b
  • i
  • l
  • i
  • t
  • a
  • t
  • i
  • o
  • n
  • A
  • c
  • t
  • 2
  • 0
  • 1
  • 4
  • P
  • r
  • i
  • s
  • o
  • n
  • A
  • c
  • t
  • 1
  • 9
  • 5
  • 2
  • P
  • r
  • i
  • s
  • o
  • n
  • R
  • u
  • l
  • e
  • s
  • 1
  • 9
  • 9
  • 9
  • (
  • S
  • I
  • 1
  • 9
  • 9
  • 9
  • /
  • 7
  • 2
  • 8
  • )
  • R
  • e
  • l
  • e
  • a
  • s
  • e
  • o
  • f
  • P
  • r
  • i
  • s
  • o
  • n
  • e
  • r
  • s
  • (
  • A
  • l
  • t
  • e
  • r
  • a
  • t
  • i
  • o
  • n
  • o
  • f
  • R
  • e
  • l
  • e
  • v
  • a
  • n
  • t
  • P
  • r
  • o
  • p
  • o
  • r
  • t
  • i
  • o
  • n
  • o
  • f
  • S
  • e
  • n
  • t
  • e
  • n
  • c
  • e
  • )
  • O
  • r
  • d
  • e
  • r
  • 2
  • 0
  • 2
  • 0
  • (
  • S
  • I
  • 2
  • 0
  • 2
  • 0
  • /
  • 1
  • 5
  • 8
  • )
ai analysis
Case Summary

Key Issues

  • {"issue_text":"Whether the agreement of sale was lawful, valid and binding despite lapsed subdivision permit","issue_type":"mixed","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Permit lapsed July 2002; agreement concluded September 2005; purported extension December 2005"}
  • {"issue_text":"Whether plaintiffs lawfully tendered the purchase price","issue_type":"law","dispositive":"no","related_facts":"Tender made November 2006 for Z$260,000 instead of Z$263,412,500"}
  • {"issue_text":"Whether plaintiffs are entitled to eviction order","issue_type":"mixed","dispositive":"no","related_facts":"Defendants ferried bricks onto property; denied physical occupation"}
This summary was generated by AI. Use Zalari to read the full judgment.
background
Facts of the Case

Background

The plaintiffs sold a subdivided portion of their property to defendants in September 2005. Unknown to both parties, the subdivision permit had lapsed in July 2002 for failure to lodge documents with Surveyor-General within 12 months as required. Defendants paid full purchase price and attempted to retrospectively extend the permit in December 2005. Plaintiffs later discovered the permit had lapsed and tendered refund, claiming agreement was null and void. Defendants refused refund and claimed permit was validly extended.
Read the full judgment, get AI analysis, and find related cases
Open in Zalari →