The court heard on May 24, 2011, CBZ Bank Limited and Kagonye entered into an agreement in which the bank agreed to provide the politician with an overdraft facility.
In the application, Kagonye and three other people — Peter Muganyi, Lilian Muganyi and Cecilia Shingaidzo Midzi, who signed as surety and core principal debtors — are cited as the respondents.
“It is ordered that: defendants pay the plaintiff the sum of $461 842, 46, defendants pay the plaintiff interest on the above amount at the rate of 28 percent per annum.
“The hypothecated immovable property being a certain piece of land in the district of Salisbury called Stand 808 Chadcombe Township of Stand 562 Chadcombe Township measuring 480 square metres held by the fourth defendant (Midzi) under deed of transfer No. 4856/1992 dated the 3rd of September 1992 is declared executable,” High Court judge Charles Hungwe’s ruling reads.
According to the court order, all the movable properties under two notarial general covering bonds were also declared executable.
Hungwe further ordered Kagonye and her accomplices to pay “…collection fees calculated in terms of the Law Society of Zimbabwe by-laws, 1982” and the cost of suit.
The litigation arose from a loan facility entered between the parties in 2011, which Kagonye failed to satisfy in terms of the agreement.
“The agreement between the parties provided inter alia that: the plaintiff (CBZ) would loan and advance to the first defendant (Kagonye) an overdraft facility in the total sum of $318 000 to finance the first defendant’s farming operations.
“The plaintiff would be entitled to charge and debit the defendant’s account with interest compounded monthly on the daily balance owing from time to time as the rate may be varied from time to time in accordance with the fluctuation in interest rates,” the court heard.
The bank said as of October 2016, the outstanding balance stood at $461 842, 46.
The bank argued in court papers that despite several demands, the defendants failed or neglected to pay amounts claimed.
However, the respondents had argued that the bank had no cause of action against Peter and Lilian, claiming they were wrongly cited.
“Second and third defendants do not owe plaintiff in any way,” the respondents said, demanding the dismissal of the claim against the two.”
In the response, the respondents further said the overdraft facility referred to in the application was converted into a loan facility on October 23, 2012 with a fixed interest rate of 14 percent per annum. DailyNews
