HARARE – The Supreme Court of Zimbabwe has dismissed an appeal by Elisha Tsindikidzo against Connect Microfinance Zambia Limited, upholding a lower court ruling that ordered him to pay US$714,000.
Tsindikidzo, a Zimbabwean national, guaranteed a loan facility obtained by Transafrica Holding SA from Connect Microfinance Zambia Limited. When Transafrica defaulted, Connect Microfinance Zambia sued Tsindikidzo to recover the debt of US$714,000.
Tsindikidzo objected to the jurisdiction of the Zimbabwean courts, arguing that the dispute should be resolved in Zambia under Zambian law.
The High Court dismissed Tsindikidzo’s objection, ruling that it had jurisdiction over the matter since the surety agreement was executed and registered in Zimbabwe, and the hypothecated properties were located in Zimbabwe.
The court also found that Tsindikidzo had admitted liability in a letter dated August 18, 2022.
Tsindikidzo appealed to the Supreme Court of Zimbabwe.
The Supreme Court, comprising Justices Chinembiri Bhunu, George Chiweshe, and Joseph Musakwa, unanimously dismissed Tsindikidzo’s appeal.
The court held that the surety agreement was a separate and distinct contract from the loan agreement and that Zimbabwean courts had jurisdiction over the matter.
The court also found that Tsindikidzo’s admission of liability was binding and that there were no material disputes of fact.
The Supreme Court ordered Tsindikidzo to pay the debt of US$714,000 to Connect Microfinance Zambia and declared the two hypothecated properties specially executable. Tsindikidzo was also ordered to pay costs.
“Our courts in Zimbabwe will always jealously guard their jurisdiction. They will not hesitate to exercise their jurisdiction in the absence of clear proof that they have no jurisdiction to hear and determine any matter occurring in their territorial jurisdiction,” the judge ruled.
“In this case the suretyship contract having been concluded in Zimbabwe and the dispute between the parties was over property in Zimbabwe, those factors localised the case in the absence of anything taking away the domestic courts’ jurisdiction.
“The court a quo found that the appellant in a letter written by his legal practitioners unreservedly admitted liability.
“That finding was made on the appellant’s failure to refute the respondent’s allegations to that effect. In its founding affidavit the respondent averred at para 18 that: ‘In the said letter, respondent’s legal practitioner:
‘Unreservedly admitted respondent’s execution of the Surety Mortgage Bonds; and
‘Did not dispute respondent’s liability to applicant; and Pleaded that a settlement agreement be executed to resolve the matter’.
Discover more from Nehanda Radio
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
