Fundisi & Anor v Mhene (CIV A 394 of 2013; HH 85 of 2016) [2016] ZWHHC 85 (28 January 2016)

Fundisi & Anor v Mhene (CIV A 394 of 2013; HH 85 of 2016) [2016] ZWHHC 85 (28 January 2016)

The court found that the respondent was a purchaser, not a tenant, based on documentary and oral evidence, including the agreement of sale and corroborating witness testimony. The claim was not prescribed as the respondent had been in peaceful possession since 2005, and the appellants' arguments regarding forgery and tenancy were not supported by evidence.

Citation
[2016] ZWHHC 85
Parties
Appellant: Sonny Fundisi; Appellant: Bettina Fundisi; Respondent: Nicholas Mhene
Court
Harare High Court
Jurisdiction
Zimbabwe
Judgment Date
28 January 2016
Case Number
CIV A 394 of 2013 ; HH 85 of 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Eviction, Prescription, Sale of Land, Evidence, Agreements
Source Language
English
Property Law Civil Procedure Eviction Prescription Sale of Land Evidence Agreements

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sonny Fundisi

Appellant

Bettina Fundisi

Appellant

Nicholas Mhene

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent was a purchaser or tenant of the disputed property
  2. 2 Whether the claim for eviction had prescribed under the Prescription Act

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent was a purchaser, not a tenant, based on documentary and oral evidence, including the agreement of sale and corroborating witness testimony. The claim was not prescribed as the respondent had been in peaceful possession since 2005, and the appellants' arguments regarding forgery and tenancy were not supported by evidence.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs.