A High Court case in which flamboyant Zimbabwean businessman Frank Buyanga, stands accused of failing to transfer 4 047 square meters of land to his client upon full payment 10 years ago stands unopposed.
The botched land deal (HC 4305/17) is on this week’s unopposed court roll. According to court documents in our possession, Mr Buyanga in November 2007, sold a piece of land being Lot 8 of 205 Greendale Township held under Deed of Transfer No. 7586/2006 measuring 4047 square meters, which property he was obliged to transfer to his buyer Collin Rose in terms of an agreement of sale .
Mr Rose paid the full purchase price of Z$51 000 000 following which Mr Buyanga was supposed to effect transfer of the property The registrar of deeds is cited as the second defendant in the case in his official capacity as the authority responsible for transfer of title deeds. According to the plaintiff’s affidavit of evidence, he entered into an agreement of sale for a certain piece of land, being Lot 8 of 205 Greendale Township held under Deed of Transfers Number 7586/2006 measuring 4047 square meters with Mr Buyanga.
The material terms of the agreement was that Mr Buyanga would sell the piece of land to Mr Rose for a purchase price Z$51 000 000. Mr Buyanga would give the plaintiff occupation and vacant possession of the property moreover that all risk and profit would pass from him to Mr Rose. As part of the agreement the seller would tender transfer of the property as soon as reasonably possible after occupation date and in any event within 14 days of the payment of the purchase price.
“In breach of the material terms of the agreement, the first defendant has, however, failed to tender transfer of the property to me as he is obliged to do in terms of the agreement between the parties,” Mr Rose said in the affidavit.
In May 2017, Mr Rose caused summons to be issued out of the High Court wherein he claimed specific performance in terms of the agreement of sale failing which the Sheriff of the High court would sign all the necessary papers to pass transfer. The summons and declaration were served upon the two defendants. The defendants have also, despite service of court process, refused, failed or neglected to enter appearance in Court.