Zimpapers Logo

Fidelis Munyoro Chief Court Reporter —
A Harare businessman’s bid to evade payment of more than $120 000 to Engen Petroleum Zimbabwe flopped after the High Court ordered him to settle his debt.

Mr Dennis Rutendo Mutseriwa had bound himself as surety and co-principal debtor with his company Costxam Investments, trading as Makoni Service Station, for its obligations in terms of the written acknowledgement of debt.

Mr Mutseriwa refused to pay, disputing the figure of $122 356 which Engen demanded in terms of the signed agreement.

But after hearing submissions from both parties’ lawyers, Justice Priscilla Chigumba ruled in favour of Engen and ordered Mr Mutseriwa and his company to pay up the debt, which now stands at more than $122 356, when interest is factored in.

“Provincial sentence is entered against the defendants (Costxam Investments and Mr Mutseriwa) jointly and severally, plus interest thereon at the rate of 18 percent per annum calculated from 31 August 2015 to date of final payment,” said Justice Chigumba.

Justice Chigumba noted in her judgment that Mr Mutseriwa failed to give sufficient evidence that the principal debt was only $54 000.

She said Mr Mutseriwa, who is the managing director of Costxam, signed a contract in which they expressly agreed that the principal debt was as claimed in the summons.

Engen Petroleum’s claim for provisional sentence to the tune of $133 356 plus interest at 18 percent per annum calculated from August 31 2015 and costs of suit on a higher scale. The summons for provisional sentence on the liquid document was issued on February 9, 2016.

“We, therefore, find that the plaintiff has discharged the onus on it and shown a prima facie basis that it is entitled to provisional sentence as claimed in the summons,” said Justice Chigumba.

She said Mr Mutseriwa and is company had no defence to Engen claim. The businessman even failed to rebut the presumption of indebtedness raised in the acknowledgement of debt and in the surety document.

To this end, the court was satisfied that it was a proper case where provisional sentence could be granted in favour of the fuel-supplying entity.