Online Reporter
Yeukai Karengezeka
Court Correspondent
A Bulawayo High Court judge has ruled in favour of a plaintiff who sought payment of a $58 873 debt from a former friend, dismissing the defendant’s arguments of duress and illegal interest rates, citing that she had only borrowed US$10 000.
Justice Mpokiseng Dube, presiding over the matter, described the debtor’s claims as a ruse and upheld the validity of the acknowledgement of debt signed between the two parties.
The case involved two former friends, Sizhakele Nzima (plaintiff) and Sazini Phiri (defendant), who had known each other for years and were members of the same stokvel, which is a savings club.
According to the plaintiff, she had lent money to Phiri over several years to support her restaurant and flea market businesses.
The loans were given based on mutual trust and were not recorded until an acknowledgement of debt was signed.
The defendant, however, disputed the amount and claimed she had only borrowed $10 000 but that it had ballooned to $58 873 due to weekly interest of 25 percent.
Phiri further alleged that she had signed the acknowledgement of debt under duress after being threatened by Nzima with witchcraft, including the death of her daughter and her husband going insane.
She said she only went to the lawyer’s office to negotiate a payment plan but was pressured into signing the document after her husband was ejected from the meeting for being “disruptive”.
Nzima, through her lawyer B.Z. Mlilo denied all allegations of intimidation and argued that the defendant had freely and voluntarily signed the acknowledgement of debt, which was witnessed by subscribing parties.
The plaintiff maintained that the defendant was fully aware of her obligations and had bound herself to repay the full amount.
In defense, Phiri’s husband, Sylvester, testified that he had learned of the debt only after the plaintiff visited their home.
He claimed to have initially negotiated a reduction of the debt to $20 000, but stopped payments after the interest allegedly kept increasing.
He also supported his wife’s claims of duress, stating that Nzima had made threats involving witchcraft.
However, Justice Dube dismissed his involvement as irrelevant, noting that Phiri was a businesswoman of full legal capacity and did not require her husband’s consent or input to enter into contracts.
The court ruled that the acknowledgement of debt was a valid and enforceable contract. Justice Dube noted that Phiri had resisted her husband’s attempts to prevent her from signing the document and had carried herself as someone who knew exactly what she was doing.
The judge dismissed claims of duress, finding no evidence that Phiri had acted out of fear or coercion.
In his judgment, Justice Dube cited legal precedents stressing the sanctity of contracts, including the principle that courts cannot rewrite agreements freely entered into by parties.
The court emphasised that an acknowledgement of debt constitutes a liquid document and is enforceable unless duress is proven.
Justice Dube ordered Phiri to pay the full debt of $58 873 or its equivalent in Zimbabwean dollars at the prevailing interbank rate, with interest at 5 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.
