LOCAL financial institution, CBZ Limited, has petitioned
the High Court seeking an order to compel former Home Affairs minister, Obert
Mpofu, his wife Sikhanyisiwe, and the couple’s business, Trebo and Kays, to
settle an outstanding $76 000 bank loan.
Through its lawyers, GN Mlotshwa and Company, the bank
issued summons in August after which Mpofu, his wife and business — through
their lawyers Mataka, Chambati and Makonese — entered appearance to defend but
later requested for further particulars from the bank.
In its declaration, the financial institution said sometime
in December 2009, it entered into a written loan facility agreement with the
former minister’s business which the latter allegedly reneged on, prompting the
current litigation.
“The material terms of the said loan facility where
plaintiff (CBZ) would allow the first defendant [Trebo and Kays] to access an
amount not exceeding $1 000 000, the loan will be payable on demand but until
such demand had been made; the facility would expire on October 31, 2010,” the
bank said.
According to the court papers, Mpofu and his wife stood as
surety and co-principal debtors to the bank for the payments of all amounts due
to the bank by their company.
“The plaintiff has complied with all material terms of the
contract by performing all its obligations. In breach of the contract and
despite demand, the defendants have failed, neglected and or refused to pay the
outstanding amount of $75 763,38,” the bank said.
“Wherefore plaintiff claims $75 763,38, interest at the
prescribed rate from the date of summons to date of full and final payment,
collection commission as prescribed by the Law Society of Zimbabwe and cost of
suit on a legal practitioner and client scale.”
However, in their response to the claim, Mpofu and his
co-defendants filed a request for further particulars on September 14, 2018 in
which they requested for a copy of the claimed written loan facility agreement.
They also said they would want the bank to explain that of
the claimed amount “what was the actual draw down by [Trebo and Kays] as a
principal debtor”, adding they also want “evidence of the draw down in the form
of withdrawal payment instruction vouchers”.
Lastly, they said the bank should explain “why was the
demand not done on expiration of the facility on October 31, 2010” and how the
claimed amount has been computed.
The matter is still pending. Newsday
0 comments:
Post a Comment