News / National
Wadyajena's company takes Sakunda to the Supreme Court
05 Dec 2015 at 07:18hrs | Views
Mayor Logistics (Private) Limited, a company owned by Gokwe-Nembudziya legislator Justice Mayor Wadyajena, has approached the Supreme Court challenging the dismissal of its $18 million claim for breach of contract against Sakunda Energy.
Wadyajena signed an agreement with an employee of Sakunda Logistics for Mayor Logistics to be the sole local transporter and distributor of fuel on behalf of Sakunda Energy (Private)Limited.
It later turned out that the employee who signed the agreement, Mr Archie Ngwenya, had no authority to sign on behalf of Sakunda Energy.
While Sakunda Energy sought the nullification of the said agreement, Wadyajena filed a counter-claim for the petroleum firm to pay him damages for loss of business to the tune of $18 million.
A fortnight ago, High Court judge Justice Priscilla Chigumba ruled that there was no valid agreement between Mayor Logistics and Sakunda Energy and dismissed the $18 million claim.
The judgment came after a full hearing and convincing arguments by Sakunda Energy's lawyer, Mr Wellington Pasipanodya of Manase and Manase law firm.
Last week, Mayor Logistics filed a notice of appeal at the Supreme Court contesting the judgment. In the notice of appeal, Mayor Logistics argued that the High Court erred in nullifying the agreement.
"The court a quo erred in holding that the signatory to the agreement in dispute did not possess actual or ostensible authority to bind respondent when the evidence led showed that such signatory had actual, or alternatively ostensible authority to enter the agreement on behalf of the respondent as a designated agent.
"It was incumbent upon respondent to call its chairman (Mr Kuda Tagwireyi) to rebut the appellant's assertion that he had authorised the signatory to sign the agreement but respondent did not do so.
"The court a quo therefore erred in not making a finding that respondent had failed to rebut the assertion by appellant that the agreement had been authorised by the said chairman," read part of the grounds of appeal.
The court, Mayor Logistics argued, erred in holding that there was no evidence to show that the Sakunda umbrella group of companies was one economic entity when there was overwhelming evidence.
Wadyajena, who testified as a witness, said he had a long association with the founder of Sakunda Energy, Mr Tagwireyi. He indicated that he started transporting fuel for Sakunda Energy in 2010 based on verbal agreements.
In 2012, Wadyajena said, Mr Tagwirei asked him to be the sole transporter within Zimbabwe because of his efficiency.
Wadyajena said his fleet of trucks was growing while Sakunda was incurring losses.
He said he communicated with Sakunda about the deal via e-mail and Mr Tagwireyi delegated Mr Ngwenya to sign the agreement on the company's behalf.
He told the court that Sakunda later reneged on the agreement by failing to hand over its entire distribution department to Mayor Logistics as agreed.
But Sakunda Energy representatives disputed the claim, saying the agreement signed by Mr Ngwenya had nothing to do with the company because he had no authority to do so.
The appeal is yet to be set down for hearing at the Supreme Court.
Wadyajena signed an agreement with an employee of Sakunda Logistics for Mayor Logistics to be the sole local transporter and distributor of fuel on behalf of Sakunda Energy (Private)Limited.
It later turned out that the employee who signed the agreement, Mr Archie Ngwenya, had no authority to sign on behalf of Sakunda Energy.
While Sakunda Energy sought the nullification of the said agreement, Wadyajena filed a counter-claim for the petroleum firm to pay him damages for loss of business to the tune of $18 million.
A fortnight ago, High Court judge Justice Priscilla Chigumba ruled that there was no valid agreement between Mayor Logistics and Sakunda Energy and dismissed the $18 million claim.
The judgment came after a full hearing and convincing arguments by Sakunda Energy's lawyer, Mr Wellington Pasipanodya of Manase and Manase law firm.
Last week, Mayor Logistics filed a notice of appeal at the Supreme Court contesting the judgment. In the notice of appeal, Mayor Logistics argued that the High Court erred in nullifying the agreement.
"The court a quo erred in holding that the signatory to the agreement in dispute did not possess actual or ostensible authority to bind respondent when the evidence led showed that such signatory had actual, or alternatively ostensible authority to enter the agreement on behalf of the respondent as a designated agent.
"It was incumbent upon respondent to call its chairman (Mr Kuda Tagwireyi) to rebut the appellant's assertion that he had authorised the signatory to sign the agreement but respondent did not do so.
"The court a quo therefore erred in not making a finding that respondent had failed to rebut the assertion by appellant that the agreement had been authorised by the said chairman," read part of the grounds of appeal.
The court, Mayor Logistics argued, erred in holding that there was no evidence to show that the Sakunda umbrella group of companies was one economic entity when there was overwhelming evidence.
Wadyajena, who testified as a witness, said he had a long association with the founder of Sakunda Energy, Mr Tagwireyi. He indicated that he started transporting fuel for Sakunda Energy in 2010 based on verbal agreements.
In 2012, Wadyajena said, Mr Tagwirei asked him to be the sole transporter within Zimbabwe because of his efficiency.
Wadyajena said his fleet of trucks was growing while Sakunda was incurring losses.
He said he communicated with Sakunda about the deal via e-mail and Mr Tagwireyi delegated Mr Ngwenya to sign the agreement on the company's behalf.
He told the court that Sakunda later reneged on the agreement by failing to hand over its entire distribution department to Mayor Logistics as agreed.
But Sakunda Energy representatives disputed the claim, saying the agreement signed by Mr Ngwenya had nothing to do with the company because he had no authority to do so.
The appeal is yet to be set down for hearing at the Supreme Court.
Source - the herald