By Tendai Kamhungira
Cabs has applied for a default judgment against former deputy Finance minister and Zanu PF Mutoko South MP David Chapfika in a bid to recover a $366 000 loan that the politician secured using his late brother’s estate.
In the application filed on Tuesday last week, CABS cited Chapfika, his company Racewin Trading (Private) Limited and his wife Abina, as respondents. “This is an application for default judgment against the defendants.
In terms of Rule 17 of the High Court Rules, 1971, the defendants were required to enter appearance within 10 days after being served with the summons in the matter.
In the case of the defendants, the 10 days expired on the 5th of January 2016,” the court heard. The defendants are said to have filed their appearance to defend way after the 10-day period had expired.
CABS’ recoveries manager Collins Chikukwa said because of the failure to file an appearance to defend on time, the defendants were barred in terms of the rules of the court.
“I am advised that where a defendant does not enter appearance to defend within the time provided for in the court rules, a plaintiff is entitled to seek judgment in terms of Rule 57 of the High Court Rules. The defendants did not enter appearance to defend within the time provided for in the rules. They are barred and the plaintiff is entitled to judgment,” Chikukwa said.
According to court papers, CABS is demanding $366 014, following a loan advanced to Chapfika in October 2011. It was a term of the facility that the company through Chapfika was to provide surety for the loan.
“On the 6th of November 2013, the first defendant (Racewin Trading) caused Surety Mortgage Bond number 3876/2013 to be registered in favour of the plaintiff (CABS), against the immovable property known as certain piece of land situate in the district of Salisbury called stand 12468 Salisbury Township of Salisbury Township Lands measuring 1 226 square metres…as further security for the amount of $100 000…,” the court heard.
It was a condition of the loan facility that Chapfika’s company would also provide further security in the form of equipment and stock.
“It was a term of the facility that interest would accrue on the first defendant’s indebtedness to plaintiff at the rate of 10 percent per annum capitalised monthly on the first day of each month until the date of payment in full and the plaintiff was entitled, at any time on the provision of the notice to the defendants, to increase the rate of interest payable under the facility,” the court heard.
Chapfika also agreed to pay monthly instalments towards the repayment of the first loan between January and September 2014, while the other transaction was to run between January 2014 and September 2016. According to court papers, Chapfika failed to pay the monthly instalments until the expiration of the agreed time frame within which to repay the loan, resulting in the current litigation. DailyNews