Archive logo
© Zimbabwe Law Reports — 2026.
Home

Navigation

Browse

Search

Find a case in seconds

Close search modal

Search by party name, citation, or a phrase from the judgment and move straight to the right volume.

Access noteResults only include content available on your current tier. If you do not have full case access, results from restricted case content will not appear.

Try a starting point
Member access

Welcome back

Sign in to continue browsing Zimbabwe Law Reports.

Don't have an account?

Menu

Close panel
Archive logo
← Home

1986 — Volume 2

Cases

Select a case to view its details and legal content.

MANNING V MANNING
1986 (2) ZLR 1 (S)
MACEYS CONSOLIDATED (PVT) LTD & ANOR V TA HOLDINGS LTD (1)
1986 (2) ZLR 5 (S)
SAMBO V BARCLAYS BANK OF ZIMBABWE LIMITED
1986 (2) ZLR 25 (S)
AUSTIN & ANOR V THE MINISTER OF STATE (SECURITY) & ANOR BULL V THE MINISTER OF STATE (SECURITY) & ORS
1986 (2) ZLR 28 (S)
S V MASEKO
1986 (2) ZLR 52 (S)
ANDREW PHILLIPS (PVT) LTD V GDR PNEUMATICS (PVT) LTD
1986 (2) ZLR 65 (S)
S V MUNEMO
1986 (2) ZLR 71 (S)
S V JOKASI
1986 (2) ZLR 79 (S)
S V MPALA
1986 (2) ZLR 93 (S)
DUBE V KHUMALO
1986 (2) ZLR 103 (S)
GARFIELD V MINISTER OF DEFENCE
1986 (2) ZLR 112 (H)
PIO V SMITH
1986 (2) ZLR 120 (S)
S V KUGOTSI
1986 (2) ZLR 134 (H)
ATTORNEY-GENERAL V MUNGANYI
1986 (2) ZLR 137 (S)
S V CHIKUMBIKE
1986 (2) ZLR 145 (S)
MOFFAT OUTFITTERS (PVT) LTD V HOOSEIN & ORS
1986 (2) ZLR 148 (S)
BANDA V MINISTER OF DEFENCE
1986 (2) ZLR 156 (S)
MHUNGU V MTINDI
1986 (2) ZLR 171 (S)
MHENE V TEUBES
1986 (2) ZLR 179 (S)
SAYBROOK (1978) (PVT) LTD & ANOR V GIRDLESTONE
1986 (2) ZLR 185 (S)
RAG (PVT) LTD V HUIZENGA NO
1986 (2) ZLR 203 (S)
RK FOOTWEAR MANUFACTURERS (PVT) LTD V BOKA BOOKSALES (PVT) LTD
1986 (2) ZLR 209 (H)
ROLAND & ANOR V MCDONNELL
1986 (2) ZLR 216 (S)
AGRICULTURAL FINANCE CORPORATION V POCOCK
1986 (2) ZLR 229 (S)
S V CHOUHAN
1986 (2) ZLR 237 (S)
CHECKERS MOTORS (PVT) LTD V KAROI FARMTECH (PVT) LTD
1986 (2) ZLR 246 (S)
LE MANS MOTORS (PVT) LTD V COLLINS
1986 (2) ZLR 253 (S)
J PAAR & COMPANY (PVT) LTD V FAWCETT SECURITY ORGANISATION (BULAWAYO) (PVT) LTD
1986 (2) ZLR 255 (S)
AMBERLEY ESTATES (PVT) LTD V CONTROLLER OF CUSTOMS AND EXCISE
1986 (2) ZLR 269 (S)
S V MCNAB
1986 (2) ZLR 280 (S)
SENIORS SERVICE (PVT) LTD V NYONI
1986 (2) ZLR 293 (S)
MACEYS CONSOLIDATED (PVT) LTD & ANOR V T A HOLDINGS LTD (2)
1986 (2) ZLR 331 (S)
© Zimbabwe Law Reports — 2026.
Home

Navigation

Browse

Search

Find a case in seconds

Close search modal

Search by party name, citation, or a phrase from the judgment and move straight to the right volume.

Access noteResults only include content available on your current tier. If you do not have full case access, results from restricted case content will not appear.

Try a starting point
Member access

Welcome back

Sign in to continue browsing Zimbabwe Law Reports.

Don't have an account?

Menu

Close panel

AGRICULTURAL FINANCE CORPORATION v POCOCK 1986 (2) ZLR 229 (S)

Case details
Citation
1986 (2) ZLR 229 (S)
Case No
Details not supplied
Court
Supreme Court, Harare
Judge
Dumbutshena CJ, Gubbay JA & McNally JA
Heard
24 October 1986
Judgment
11 November 1986
Counsel
M J Gillespie, for the appellant. I A Donovan, for the respondent.
Case Type
Civil Appeal
Annotations
Link to case annotations

Flynote

Contract — non-variation clause — non-waiver clause — combined effect of both clauses in a contract

Headnote

A non-variation clause in a contract entrenches the requirement that any variation has to be in writing but does not prevent a party for whose benefit it is inserted from waiving the requirement.

A non-waiver clause negatives any raising of a waiver or any estoppel in that it amounts to notice given in advance, acknowledged by the other party, that conduct which might otherwise be a waiver or give rise to an estoppel, may not be taken to be such conduct.

The combined effect of the two clauses is that two parties to a written agreement containing carefully and extensively worded non-variation and non-waiver clauses cannot enter an enforceable oral agreement departing from the written terms since to the extent it is a variation of the contract it is precluded by the non-variation clause whereas if it be said to be a waiver or conduct giving rise to an estoppel then the non-waiver clause provides the complete answer to the point.

Sign in required

Continue beyond the preview

Sign in or create a free account — you get 2 full-case reads included.