decision of this Court in (supra) the respondent was forced to Chidyausiku v Nyakambambo concede that the cross - appeal did not comply with the law as it did not seek any relief on the substantive order made. My understanding of the respondents’ position was that in the event the main appeal succeeded, this Court should revisit the finding made by the court in a quo dismissing the other causes of action and in the event that any one of them succeeded then the eviction and holding over damages would stand. Speaking for myself I find nothing wrong with such an approach and indeed it seems to me that in a case such as this one there is no other alternative. Hopefully this issue will come up for consideration by a full court so that the principle can be revisited in order to ascertain whether it still makes good law. The only issue that falls for determination is whether the court was a quo correct in determining that the tender of ZW$1 did not constitute tender of the rent due. The place to start is s 30 of the Rent Regulations, 32/07. That section provides in relevant part: the purpose of sub-section (2), due”, in relation to dwelling, means “For “rent – So long as an order fixing the rent for a dwelling is in force, the authorised rent fixed by that order or Rent agreed the terms of the lease agreement.” It is clear from the above definition that the legislature had in mind two situations. These were firstly where the rent was fixed in terms of an order by the Rent Board and secondly where the rent is agreed in terms of the lease agreement. The definition does not however cover a situation, such as the present, where the rent was no longer agreed.
decision of this Court in Chidyausiku v Nyakambambo (supra) the respondent was forced to concede that the cross - appeal did not comply with the law as it did not seek any relief on the substantive order made. My understanding of the respondents’ position was that in the event the main appeal succeeded, this Court should revisit the finding made by the court a quo in dismissing the other causes of action and in the event that any one of them succeeded then the eviction and holding over damages would stand. Speaking for myself I find nothing wrong with such an approach and indeed it seems to me that in a case such as this one there is no other alternative. Hopefully this issue will come up for consideration by a full court so that the principle can be revisited in order to ascertain whether it still makes good law. The only issue that falls for determination is whether the court a quo was correct in determining that the tender of ZW$1 did not constitute tender of the rent due. The place to start is s 30 of the Rent Regulations, 32/07. That section provides in relevant part: “For the purpose of sub-section (2), “rent due”, in relation to dwelling, means – So long as an order fixing the rent for a dwelling is in force, the authorised rent fixed by that order or Rent agreed the terms of the lease agreement.” It is clear from the above definition that the legislature had in mind two situations. These were firstly where the rent was fixed in terms of an order by the Rent Board and secondly where the rent is agreed in terms of the lease agreement. The definition does not however cover a situation, such as the present, where the rent was no longer agreed.