ZUPCO pensioners’ US$1,2m claim rejected: Court finds summons ’embarrassing’

HARARE – The High Court has rejected the claims of 55 former employees of the Zimbabwe United Passenger Company (ZUPCO) seeking unpaid pension benefits, citing vague and embarrassing summonses that failed to establish a clear cause of action against two key defendants.

The court found that the plaintiffs’, 55 former employees, summons and declaration were vague and embarrassing, failing to disclose a cause of action against the two defendants.

The plaintiffs had sued the Zimbabwe United Passenger Company Pension and Life Assurance Fund, the Board of Trustees, Zimbabwe United Passenger Company, Fidelity Life Assurance Company of Zimbabwe, and the Insurance and Pensions Commission of Zimbabwe for unpaid pension benefits.

The fourth and fifth defendants, Fidelity Life Assurance Company and the Insurance and Pensions Commission, raised an exception to the summons and declaration, arguing that they were vague and embarrassing and did not disclose a cause of action.

High Court judge Justice Siyabona Musithu agreed with the defendants, finding that the plaintiffs had failed to set out a clear and concise statement of their claims against the fourth and fifth defendants.

The court also found that the plaintiffs had not established a causal link between their claims and the defendant’s culpability.

“From a reading of the summons and declaration, even as amended, it is not clear on what basis the fourth defendant has been sued. The plaintiffs’ claims are based on the unpaid pension benefits that accrued to them in the course of their employment with the third defendant.

“In paragraph 8 of the declaration, the fourth defendant together with the other four defendants is accused of having failed and ignored to deliver the plaintiffs’ pension benefits.

“In paragraph (a) of the amended prayer, the fourth defendant, together with the other four defendants are required to pay the plaintiffs the sum of US$1,281, 136, or the equivalent in Zimbabwe dollars at the prevailing official exchange rate, being what the plaintiffs’ called their aggregated capital value, transferable to a registered Pension Fund of each Plaintiff’s choice, for securing pension benefits consisting of a cash lump sum equal to a proportion of respective Plaintiffs’ capital value dependent on mode of Plaintiffs’ mode of exit.

“The causal link between the plaintiffs’ claims and the fourth defendant’s culpability is clearly missing.

“I agree with counsel for the fourth defendant that the plaintiffs’ claim against the fourth defendant is too vague and embarrassing to such an extent that the fourth defendant does not even know why it has been sued or what case it is expected to answer to,” the judge ruled.

The court has given the plaintiffs ten days to amend their summons and declaration, failing which the fourth and fifth defendants may approach the court for dismissal of the claims. The plaintiffs have been ordered to pay the costs of suit on the ordinary scale.

“The fourth and fifth defendants’ exception to the plaintiffs’ summons and declaration is hereby upheld,” Justice Musithu ruled.

“The plaintiffs shall amend their summons and declaration within ten days of the service of this order, failing which the fourth and fifth defendants shall be entitled to approach the court for the dismissal of the plaintiffs’ claims.

“The plaintiffs shall pay the fourth and fifth defendants’ costs of suit on the ordinary scale.”