Zimpapers Logo

Prosper Dembedza

Herald Correspondent 

Bell Petroleum (Pvt) Ltd director Daniel Guzha has appeared in court for allegedly defrauding a client of US$95 502 in a fuel deal. 

Harare magistrate Mr Dennis Mangosi granted Guzha US$500 bail.

Bell Petroleum and the complainant had a business relationship dating back to 2022 with the complainant getting bulk fuel from them. The complainant would pay in advance and the fuel would be delivered within an agreed time frame.

On March 19 this year, the complainant wanted 40 000 litres of diesel and contacted Guzha who gave a quotation of US$60 000. The money was paid through two transfers of US$10 000 the same day, and US$40 000 the following day. 

After acknowledging receipt of the money, Bell Petroleum only supplied 20 000 litres and promised to offset the balance later. 

On March 22, the complainant made another payment of US$57 000 into Bell Petroleum’s account to bring the total balance on to the complaint’s credit to US$90 605. Bell then delivered the 20 000 litres of fuel owed from the first order. On 28 March, Bell Petroleum delivered another 40 000 litres.

The court heard that Guzha then advised the complainant that he could reduce his prices if she bought anything above 80 000 litres. The complainant agreed made a payment of US$140 000 for her new order of 120 000 litres of fuel. 

It is alleged that Guzha acknowledged receiving the money and delivered 49 987 litres of fuel on April 7 and 10. He promised to deliver the remaining 70 013 litres later. The complainant followed up on the non-delivery but Guzha became evasive. 

The complainant was then told she had not paid for the fuel she was expecting to be delivered. In response, she pulled out all the proof of payment documents and the delivery notes of the fuel she had received. She continued investigating and found Guzha was in possession of forged delivery notes showing that she had received the fuel in dispute, when this had not been delivered.

As a result of Guzha’s alleged actions, the complainant suffered a prejudice of US$95 502 and nothing was recovered.