Online Reporter
Fidelis Munyoro
Chief Court Reporter
A DISPUTE over cattle, contracts, and credibility came to a close in the Bulawayo High Court as the court ruled against
businessman Peter Dube in his claim against a farmer over the delivery of cattle and related damages.
The case, which spanned seven years and multiple court appearances, revolved around whether Peter Dube had purchased
“pure-breed beef master” cattle as alleged, or merely commercial heifers, as the defendant argued.
In his ruling, Justice Christopher Dube-Banda last week dismissed Peter Dube’s case, stating that he had failed to prove on a
balance of probabilities that he had purchased the high-value beef master cattle.
The judge also found that the delivery and acceptance of 35 cattle by the plaintiff constituted a full and final settlement of the
agreement between the parties.
“This court cannot rely on speculation or unsubstantiated claims,” Justice Dube-Banda said, addressing the plaintiff’s
inconsistent evidence.
“Trials are about evidence, and the plaintiff has failed to discharge the onus of proof required to establish his case.”
The dispute originated in 2015 when Peter Dube claimed to have purchased 20 “pure breed beef master” heifers from the
farmer, Mr Adolphous Dube, paying between US$650 and $800 per animal.
According to Peter, the cattle were expected to calve annually, yielding a herd of 120 by 2018. However, when he attempted to
collect his animals, he alleged that Adolphous provided 35 cattle of mixed quality, including old and non-pedigree animals, in
breach of their agreement.
Peter Dube sought delivery of the remaining cattle or payment of USD $87,000 in damages, along with additional claims for
fencing supplies and feed costs.
In response, Adolphous Dube denied ever selling pure breed beef masters to the plaintiff, asserting instead that the transaction
involved commercial heifers at a significantly lower value.
Central to the case was the question of the breed and quality of the cattle sold.
Justice Dube-Banda noted that Peter Dube’s own witnesses had contradicted his version of events.
An individual who referred Peter to the defendant testified that he did not know whether the defendant was selling pedigree
cattle.
Moreover, under cross-examination, the plaintiff admitted that he had not seen the animals he purchased until years after the
transaction.
“The plaintiff’s case is imperilled by conflicting evidence, inconsistent testimony, and a lack of documentation supporting his
claims,” the judge observed. “When a litigant presents two mutually destructive versions, it is self-defeating.”
The court also addressed whether the 35 cattle delivered in 2018 represented a final settlement of the dispute.
Evidence showed that mediators, including mutual acquaintances of the parties, had brokered a compromise at the defendant’s
farm.
While Peter claimed he accepted the cattle under protest to complain later, the court found no evidence that his dissatisfaction
was communicated to the defendant.
“It is immaterial what was in the plaintiff’s mind if such intentions were not communicated,” Justice Dube-Banda said. “By his
conduct, the plaintiff accepted the delivery as a compromise, extinguishing any further legal claims.”
The legal saga also touched on procedural issues, including amendments to the plaintiff’s claims during the trial.
Notably, the term “pedigree breed” was replaced with “pure breed beef master,” reflecting a shift in the plaintiff’s argument.
However, this amendment failed to strengthen the case, as the judge found no proof that such an agreement had ever been
made.
In his final remarks, Justice Dube-Banda underscored the importance of clear agreements and credible evidence in contractual
disputes.
“The plaintiff’s case must fail, not because of some legal technicality, but because it was not supported by the weight of
evidence,” he stated.
The court ordered Peter Dube to pay the defendant’s legal costs, bringing an end to a protracted case that had tested the
patience of all involved.
The ruling affirmed Adolphous Dube’s version of events and marked the conclusion of a bitter dispute.
But for Peter Dube, it served as a cautionary tale about the challenges of proving claims in the absence of concrete evidence.
As Justice Dube-Banda aptly concluded: “This court can only rule on the facts presented before it, and the facts in this case do
not support the plaintiff’s claims.”
Mr Ndabezinhle Mazibuko of Calderwood, Bryce Hendrie and Partners represented the plaintiff while Mr Josphat Tshuma of
Webb, Low and Barry acted for the defendant.
