Manomano v Micro-Teaching Computer Systems (Pvt) Ltd and Another (29 of 2022) [2022] ZWHHC 29 (19 January 2022)

Manomano v Micro-Teaching Computer Systems (Pvt) Ltd and Another (29 of 2022) [2022] ZWHHC 29 (19 January 2022)

The lease between the first and second respondents was not terminated as due process under the written agreement was not followed; the council resolution alone did not effect termination. The first respondent had a valid lease and was entitled to evict the appellant, whose allocation letter and alleged lease were no...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2022] ZWHHC 29
Parties
Appellant: Tsitsi Manomano; 1st Respondent: Micro-Teaching Computer Systems (PVT) Ltd; 2nd Respondent: City of Harare
Court
Harare High Court
Jurisdiction
Zimbabwe
Judgment Date
19 January 2022
Case Number
29 of 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
appeal dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Eviction, Lease Termination, Council Resolutions, Administrative Justice
Source Language
english
Land Law Contract Law Administrative Law Eviction Lease Termination Council Resolutions Administrative Justice

Source-derived case record

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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tsitsi Manomano

Appellant

Micro-Teaching Computer Systems (PVT) Ltd

1st Respondent

City of Harare

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the lease agreement between the first and second respondents was valid despite a council resolution purporting to terminate it
  2. 2 Whether the appellant could be lawfully evicted from the premises
  3. 3 Whether the appellant's allocation letter and alleged lease with the City of Harare remained valid

Ratio Decidendi

The lease between the first and second respondents was not terminated as due process under the written agreement was not followed; the council resolution alone did not effect termination. The first respondent had a valid lease and was entitled to evict the appellant, whose allocation letter and alleged lease were no longer valid.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs.