Law Portal
Zimbabwe

Welcome To Law Portal

Welcome, Guest!
[Help?]

HB78-13 - ALFRED MPFUMBATWA vs BARBARA MURASIRANWA and EDGAR MBWEMBWE and REGISTRAR OF DEEDS and VICTORIA FALLS CITY COUNCIL

  • View Judgment By Categories
  • View Full Judgment


Procedural Law-viz final orders re ex tempore judgment.
Procedural Law-viz rescission of judgment.
Procedural Law-viz prescription re section 15(d) of the Prescription Act [Chapter 8:11].

Final Orders re: Approach iro Functions, Powers, Obligations, Judicial Misdirections and Effect of Court Orders

This is an application for rescission of a judgment granted to Barbara Murasiranwa on 16 October 2008 wherein she was declared the owner of Stand Number 4935 Chinotimba Township, Victoria Falls. The respondents in that case were directed to do all things necessary to transfer Stand Number 4935, Chinotimba Township, Victoria Falls into the name of Barbara Murasiranwa within 60 days of the court order.

The circumstances giving rise to this matter are briefly these:

On 6 October 1999, the applicant, Alfred Mupfumbatwa, sold the property at the centre of this dispute to Edgar Mbwembwe, the second respondent. A dispute relating to their Agreement of Sale ensued resulting in Alfred Mupfumbatwa instituting proceedings against Edgar Mbwembwe under HC1083/02. He went on to apply for summary judgment which he subsequently abandoned by withdrawing it. He made no further claim against Edgar Mbwembwe. Following that withdrawal, Edgar Mbwembwe sold the property to Barbra Murasiranwa in 2001. In 2008, which was 8 years later, Barbara Murasiranwa filed an application under case number HC16/08 seeking an order for transfer of the property to her name - which order was granted on 16 October 2008. It was then that Alfred Mupfumbatwa challenged the application on the basis that he had cancelled the agreement between himself and Edgar Mbwembwe.

Alfred Mupfumbatwa's claim against Edgar Mbwembwe has been prescribed in terms of section 15(d) of the Prescription Act [Chapter 8:11]. The matter between the two is, therefore, non-existent. Alfred Mupfumbatwa's rights were prescribed by operation of law and are non-existent. He cannot try to assert his non-existent rights against Barbara Murasiranwa either. The explanation for failing to file the application timeously is also not convincing. I am unable to accept it.

In the light of the foregoing this application is hereby dismissed with costs.

Court Application – Ex Tempore

 

            KAMOCHA J:   This is an application for rescission of a judgment granted to Barbara Murasiranwa on 16 October 2008 wherein she was declared the owner of stand number 4935 Chinotimba Township, Victoria Falls.  The respondents in that case were directed to do all things necessary to transfer stand number 4935 Chinotimba Township, Victoria Falls into the name of Barbara Murasiranwa within 60 days of the court order.

            The circumstances giving rise to this matter are briefly these:

            On 6 October 1999 the applicant Alfred Mupfumbatwa sold the property at the centre of this dispute to Edgar Mbwembwe the second respondent.   A dispute relating to their agreement of sale ensued resulting in Mupfumbatwa instituting proceedings against Mbwembwe under HC 1083/02.  He went on to apply for summary judgment which he subsequently abandoned by withdrawing it.  He made no further claim against Mbwembwe.  Following that withdrawal Mbwembwe sold the property to Barbra Murasiranwa in 2001.

In 2008 which was 8 years later Barbara filed an application under case number HC 16/08 seeking an order for transfer of the property to her name which order was granted on 16 October 2008.  It was then that Mupfumbatwa challenged the application on the basis that he had cancelled the agreement between himself and Mbwembwe.

            Mupfumbatwa's claim against Mbwembwe has been prescribed in terms of section 15(d) of the Prescription Act [Chapter 8:11].  The matter between the two is therefore, non- existent.  Mupfumbatwa's rights were prescribed by operation of law and are non-existent.  He cannot try to assert his non-existent rights against Barbara either.  The explanation for failing to file the application timeously is also not convincing.  I am unable to accept it.

            In the light of the foregoing this application is hereby dismissed with costs.

 

 

 

 

Mashayamombe & Company, applicant's legal practitioners

Coghlan & Welsh, 1st respondent's legal practitioners
Back Main menu

Categories

Back to top