{"id":16604,"date":"2026-01-11T06:59:49","date_gmt":"2026-01-11T06:59:49","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/africa\/16604\/"},"modified":"2026-01-11T06:59:49","modified_gmt":"2026-01-11T06:59:49","slug":"supreme-court-slams-property-developer-for-brazen-disregard-of-rules","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/africa\/16604\/","title":{"rendered":"Supreme Court slams property developer for ‘brazen disregard’ of rules"},"content":{"rendered":"

THE Supreme Court has dismissed with costs an application by Jockstar Investments (Private) Limited to revive an appeal in a long-running property dispute, condemning the company\u2019s conduct as a \u201cbrazen disregard of the rules\u201d and finding that its intended appeal had no prospects of success.<\/p>\n

Justice Nicholas Mathonsi said the application for condonation and reinstatement of the appeal was \u201cspectacularly without merit,\u201d noting that the developer had repeatedly flouted court rules in a bid to keep alive an appeal that had twice been deemed abandoned.<\/p>\n

\u201cHistorically, the applicant has made it a habit to flout the rules of court,\u201d Mathonsi said.<\/p>\n

<\/a><\/p>\n

\u201cThe application therefore is susceptible to being dismissed with costs.\u201d<\/p>\n

The dispute dates back to a 2010 agreement of sale under which Sipiwe Sylvia Dzumbira and Tendai Michael Dzumbira paid US$15 000 in full to purchase an undeveloped stand in Harare, from Jockstar Investments. Despite receiving the full purchase price by July 2010, the developer never transferred the stand to the couple, even though the agreement expressly placed the obligation to effect transfer on the seller.<\/p>\n

More than a decade later, in March 2021, Jockstar surprised the buyers by suing them in the High Court, seeking confirmation of the cancellation of the sale agreement. It alleged, for the first time, that the parties had agreed to additional \u201cdevelopment fees\u201d of US$6 500, which it claimed the buyers had failed to pay.<\/p>\n

The Dzumbiras opposed the claim and filed a counterclaim compelling transfer of the stand, or alternatively damages equal to its replacement value. Jockstar then withdrew its main claim and attempted to block the counterclaim by raising a special plea of prescription, arguing that the buyers\u2019 right to sue had expired three years after the last instalment was paid in July 2010.<\/p>\n

The High Court rejected that argument, finding that Jockstar had failed to prove when prescription began to run and that, in any event, its own conduct had interrupted prescription. It is that decision Jockstar sought unsuccessfully to challenge on appeal.<\/p>\n

<\/a><\/p>\n

Mathonsi was unsparing in his assessment of both the substance of the intended appeal and the manner in which it had been prosecuted.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe manner in which the applicant sought to raise a special plea of prescription\u2026 is novel indeed and betrays a complete lack of bona fides,\u201d the judge said.<\/p>\n

He traced a pattern of repeated non-compliance with the rules: failure to serve the notice of appeal, late and defective applications for condonation, and the failure to file heads of argument even after the appeal had been reinstated once by consent.<\/p>\n

\u201cThere can be no worse lackadaisical approach to litigation,\u201d Mathonsi said, noting that Jockstar only instructed counsel to prepare heads of argument on the last possible day, without even providing him with the record.<\/p>\n

The court rejected attempts to blame the failure on counsel\u2019s busy schedule, pointing out that no supporting affidavit had been filed by the advocate concerned.<\/p>\n

\u201cAn applicant who takes the attitude that indulgences, including that of condonation, are there for the asking does himself a disservice,\u201d Mathonsi said.<\/p>\n

On the merits, the court found that Jockstar had failed to demonstrate any prospects of success on appeal. The judge emphasised that the sale agreement was \u201cheavy with conditions\u201d and that transfer of the stand was not triggered merely by payment of the last instalment.<\/p>\n

\u201cClearly therefore transfer of the stand\u2026 was not predicated merely on the payment of the last instalment in July 2010,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n

Crucially, the court held that Jockstar\u2019s own pleadings in the withdrawn 2021 summons amounted to a tacit acknowledgment of liability, interrupting prescription.<\/p>\n

\u201cIn our law, the debtor\u2019s words or conduct should be taken into account,\u201d Mathonsi said.<\/p>\n

\u201cBy virtue of the doctrine of tacit acknowledgement, prescription was interrupted.\u201d<\/p>\n

The judge rejected the developer\u2019s argument that its earlier statements did not interrupt prescription, saying he did \u201cnot agree\u201d with that contention.<\/p>\n

In the final analysis, the court found that Jockstar had failed on all fronts.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe applicant has not shown good and sufficient cause for the grant of the indulgence of condonation,\u201d Mathonsi said.<\/p>\n

\u201cMore importantly, the applicant\u2019s defence of prescription was not proven at the trial. There are no prospects of success on appeal.\u201d<\/p>\n

The application was dismissed with costs, with Justices Rita Makarau,\u00a0 Lavender Makoni and Bharat Patel concurring\u00a0 bringing to an end what the court described as a prolonged and mismanaged attempt to avoid accountability in a straightforward property transfer dispute.<\/p>\n

<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"THE Supreme Court has dismissed with costs an application by Jockstar Investments (Private) Limited to revive an appeal…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":16605,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[60],"tags":[106],"class_list":{"0":"post-16604","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-zimbabwe","8":"tag-zimbabwe"},"share_on_mastodon":{"url":"","error":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/africa\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16604","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/africa\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/africa\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/africa\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/africa\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=16604"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/africa\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16604\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/africa\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/16605"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/africa\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=16604"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/africa\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=16604"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/africa\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=16604"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}