Businesswoman ordered to pay US$58,873 debt

A Bulawayo High Court judge has ruled in favour of a woman who sought payment of a US$58 873 debt from a former friend, dismissing claims that the money had unlawfully accrued through excessive interest and that the acknowledgement of debt was signed under duress.

Justice Mpokiseng Dube upheld the validity of the acknowledgement of debt (AOD) signed between Sizhakele Nzima (plaintiff) and Sazini Phiri (defendant), describing the defence raised by Phiri as a ruse.

The matter arose from a long-standing personal and financial relationship between the two women, who had known each other for several years and were members of the same stokvel, a community-based savings club.

According to court papers, Nzima had lent Phiri various sums of money over a prolonged period to support her restaurant and flea market businesses. The loans were advanced on the basis of mutual trust and were not formally documented until the parties later signed an acknowledgement of debt.

Phiri disputed the claimed amount, arguing that she had only borrowed US$10 000, which she alleged had escalated to US$58 873 due to weekly interest charged at 25 percent. She further claimed that she had signed the acknowledgement of debt under duress, alleging that Nzima had threatened her with witchcraft, including the death of her daughter and her husband losing his sanity.

Phiri told the court that she had gone to her lawyer's office merely to negotiate a repayment plan but was pressured into signing the document after her husband was allegedly removed from the meeting for being disruptive.

Nzima, represented by B.Z. Mlilo, denied all allegations of intimidation and coercion. She argued that Phiri had freely and voluntarily signed the acknowledgement of debt, which was properly witnessed by subscribing parties. The plaintiff maintained that the defendant was fully aware of her obligations and had legally bound herself to repay the full amount.

In her defence, Phiri's husband, Sylvester, testified that he only became aware of the debt after Nzima visited their home. He claimed that he had initially negotiated a reduction of the debt to US$20 000 but that payments stopped after the interest allegedly continued to rise. He supported his wife's claims of duress, reiterating allegations of threats involving witchcraft.

Justice Dube dismissed Sylvester Phiri's involvement as irrelevant, noting that the defendant was a businesswoman of full legal capacity who did not require her husband's consent or participation to enter into contractual agreements.

In his judgment, Justice Dube found that the acknowledgement of debt was a valid and enforceable contract. He noted that evidence showed Phiri had resisted her husband's attempts to prevent her from signing the document and had conducted herself as someone who fully understood the nature and consequences of her actions.

The judge rejected the claims of duress, ruling that there was no proof that Phiri had acted under fear or coercion. He cited established legal principles on the sanctity of contracts, emphasising that courts cannot rewrite agreements freely entered into by parties.

Justice Dube further held that an acknowledgement of debt constitutes a liquid document and is enforceable unless duress is proven.

The court ordered Phiri to pay Nzima the full amount of US$58 873 or its equivalent in Zimbabwean dollars at the prevailing interbank exchange rate, together with interest at five percent per annum from the date the summons was issued. Phiri was also ordered to pay the costs of the suit on an attorney-client scale.