Zimpapers Logo

Fidelis Munyoro Chief Court Reporter
ABS Consultancy has approached the Supreme Court challenging a High Court decision rejecting its US$294 million claim against Great Zimbabwe University (GZU) in a quantity survey and construction works dispute.

The appeal follows a High Court ruling dismissing the company’s US$294 million claim for inflating an invoice for payment of quantity surveyor services and ancillary works it provided for the construction of GZU main campus structures thrown out.

ABS filed a notice of appeal last week to the superior court outlining reasons for contesting the lower court’s decision.

Though its lawyer, Advocate Edley Mubaiwa, ABS and its business partners MAS QS and Mukorombindo Associates Joint Venture, argues that the lower court erred in determining the matter without considering the law applicable to the cause of action pleaded by the company.

“The court a quo erred in strictly evaluating and rejecting appellant’s evidence without ascribing a proper basis therefore and, further, in making findings of credibility upon that evidence as if it had heard adverse evidence from the defendants,” noted Adv Mubaiwa in his grounds of appeal.

“The court a quo erred in making findings which are inconsistent with admissions formally made of record by respondents in the absence of an application or order for withdrawal thereof.”

It is also ABS’s contention that the lower court misdirected itself in finding that the evidence led by the company was insufficient to establish a strong case in favour of the cause of action pleaded.

ABS Consultancy and its business partners, charged US$24 million for rendering quantity surveyor services for the construction of a Heritage Centre and Administration block at GZU.

However, on claiming payment, ABS issued an invoice for US$294 million, which the High Court rejected.

Instead, Justice Edith Mushore upheld the GZU application for absolution from instance, saying there was no case for the GZU to answer.

The judge also noted that ABS’ evidence was not credible, while the documentary evidence shown in court declared war on the company’s witnesses, resulting in its case imploding all by itself.

GZU challenged the US$294m figure, arguing the fee claimed by the consultancy firm was inflated.

It said ABS calculated its fee against an area of space larger than the area which required construction.

It insisted that ABS quoted US$24 million and the US$294 million was based on incorrect measurements and drawings which overinflated the measurements upon which the administration block and heritage centre were meant to occupy.

According to the agreement between the parties, ABS would render quantity surveying and ancillary works on 5 759m² for the administration block and 28 300m² for the Heritage Centre, but the firm made its calculations based on 60 000m² and 81 234m², respectively.