Zimre in contempt of court over property sale
ZIMRE Property Investments has been stopped by the High Court from reselling a Ruwa residential stand that the first buyer had paid for in full, with the court criticising the firm for flagrantly disregarding a previous court order confirming the validity of the agreement of sale.
Zimre sought to reverse the original sale by refunding the buyer, justifying the move by saying that the original purchase price made no economic sense at the time of the payment.
The High Court was also critical of Zimre’s lawyers for accepting instructions that contradicted a court order and acting for “a client who is steering perilously close to unethical conduct” .
Ms Simelinkosi Zinamo was suing Zimre, one of the leading property investment firms in the country, for a second time after finding the firm was effecting transfer of the stand she had paid for to a third party, despite her paying the full purchase price and despite an existing High Court order confirming the validity of the contract between her and Zimre.
That January order by Justice Mary Dube was not appealed, meaning both parties were obliged to observe it.
But Zimre allegedly disregarded the order and reimbursed Ms Zinamo $8 900 despite her having paid the full purchase price of US$26 000.
This sparked the second legal action at the High Court, this time to stop the transfer of her property to the third party.
Justice Webster Chinamora last week granted Ms Zinamo an interim order she sought pending the finalisation of the dispute.
“Zimre were interdicted from effecting transfer of Stand 27288 Ruwa Township situated in the district of Goromonzi measuring 800 square metres to any other person,” read the order.
“I am at pains to appreciate the prudence of such foolhardiness. I find it undesirable and beyond conscience for a lawyer who finds himself in the invidious position of acting for a client who is steering perilously close to unethical conduct to continue with the brief.”
The granting of interim relief, said Justice Chinamora, would also protect the integrity of the earlier order by Justice Dube and safeguard the efficacy of its consequences.
In this case, the dispute to be resolved boiled down to who of the competing parties should, in the final analysis, retain the property.
And Justice Chinamora took the view that given the galloping inflation, monetary compensation was not an effective remedy to a purchaser who had paid the purchase price and was entitled to take transfer.
Zimre sought to argue that Ms Zinamo’s payment of the balance, although made in terms of the law, did not make economic sense.
To this end, Zimre advised its lawyers that it would rather repudiate the agreement than agree to effect transfer to Ms Zinamo.
But Mr Innocent Chagonda, who argued the matter for Ms Zinamo, told the court that the effect of Zimre’s suggestion was that it was not acting in accordance with the advice of its own lawyers.
The suggestion prompted the court to warn lawyers against conducting themselves in a way that undermines a court order.
“A lawyer who continues to act for a client whose instructions contradict an order of this court effectively makes himself an accessory to an act of contempt of court,” said Justice Chinamora.
“I am at pains to appreciate the prudence of such foolhardiness. I find it undesirable and beyond conscience for a lawyer who finds himself in the invidious position of acting for a client who is steering perilously close to unethical conduct to continue with the brief.”
After paying the purchase price in terms of the agreement of sale, Ms Zinamo was shocked to discover that her account had been credited with $8 900 in local currency from the property company.
Ms Zinamo made an enquiry which revealed that the purchase price had been returned to her on the basis that the payment should have been made in United States currency after Zimre changed the sale conditions.