The High Court of Zimbabwe (Commercial Division) has ordered Model Skills Investments (Pvt) Ltd to pay costs on the ordinary scale after it withdrew an application to amend its pleadings in a dispute over a US$80,000 Mercedes-Benz S500.

Justice Joseph Chilimbe ruled that, although the respondents had sought punitive costs, the circumstances did not justify such an award.

The dispute arises from a sale agreement concluded on 11 April 2020, under which Model Skills Investments purchased the Mercedes-Benz S500 from Hailtop Investments (Pvt) Ltd. The vehicle was registered in Hailtop’s name, but the applicant said it had been advised that it was jointly owned by Cindy Victor and Vincent Garacho.

After the transaction collapsed, Model Skills Investments issued summons in February 2023 (case number HCHC 724/23), seeking cancellation of the agreement and a refund of the purchase price.

The applicant later claimed it uncovered information concerning the vehicle’s importation and registration history, including prior registrations in the names of third parties and alleged statutory encumbrances. The vehicle was eventually seized by the Zimbabwe Revenue Authority on 25 May 2025.

On this basis, the applicant argued that the contract was void ab initio and applied, in terms of Rule 49 of the High Court (Commercial Division) Rules, 2020, to amend its summons, declaration, and evidentiary bundle.

The application was opposed by Ms Victor, Mr Garacho, and Hailtop Investments. However, after the matter had been set down for hearing, the applicant withdrew the application, tendering costs on a party-to-party scale.

The respondents accepted the withdrawal but sought punitive, attorney-and-client costs, describing the amendment application as unmeritorious, reckless, vexatious, and frivolous. They further alleged dishonesty, non-compliance with earlier court directives, and prejudice caused by the late withdrawal.

In response, the applicant argued that punitive costs are awarded only in exceptional circumstances involving clear misconduct. It maintained that the amendment was sought to ventilate the real issues in dispute and achieve justice between the parties, as envisaged under Rule 49.

Justice Chilimbe emphasised that costs lie within the court’s discretion and that punitive costs are an extraordinary remedy, reserved for cases of dishonest, malicious, or abusive conduct. He noted that courts generally favour amendments aimed at clarifying the true issues between litigants, unless they are manifestly improper or cause irreparable prejudice.

While observing that the applicant may have prosecuted its case without sufficient diligence, the judge found no evidence of mala fides or abuse of process. He also noted broader challenges in proving ownership of movable property such as motor vehicles, stressing that registration documents are not necessarily conclusive proof of title.

The court held that any prejudice suffered by the respondents could be adequately cured by an ordinary costs order. It further noted that the withdrawal effectively brought the litigation to an end, as the main matter had already been deemed abandoned.

Accordingly, the court granted leave to withdraw the amendment application and ordered Model Skills Investments (Pvt) Ltd to pay the respondents’ costs on the ordinary scale.

The applicant was represented by Matsikidze Attorneys at Law, while the respondents were represented by Dube-Banda, Nzarayapenga & Partners.