adminbeverage manufacturer allegedly installed advertising billboards on his property without his consent.
Mr Solomon Mandizira represented by Chingeya-Mandizira legal practitioners in the summons claimed that as a result of this unsanctioned use of his Zengeza 4 property, his house’s roof and ceiling were damaged.
He claims that Delta was also using his house as free advertising space and wants payment from the company of US$500 for each of the advertising billboards per month.
In his declaration, Mr Mandizira stated that on or around November 8, 2010 Delta through its agents based at Delta Beverages Distribution Centre in Chitungwiza erected eight advertising billboards boards on his property.
“The advertising boards clearly show one of the defendants main products which is Coke. The advertising boards are clearly visible to people passing in the street,” Mr Mandizira submitted.
He averred that the advertising boards were erected without his knowledge or consent and in the process they damaged six asbestos sheets and the cost for repairing the subsequent damage caused was US$2 000.
“The erection of these advertising boards for the purpose of economic gain to the defendants is now using the plaintiffs building as free advertising space,” he said.
Despite demand he submitted that Delta has neglected or failed to pay for the damaged roof and advertising rentals he is demanding.
However, Delta represented by Dube, Manikai and Hwacha denied contracting third parties to erect any advertising billboards on the said site.
Delta also denied using the space for free saying it had paid for the services and puts Mr Mandizira to the strictest proof.
“Defendant paid the services and plaintiff now seeks to benefit from defendant,” Delta said.
Delta further denied any liability to pay Mr Mandizira any damages saying he had already been paid for the advertising billboards.
According to a pre-trial conference minutes Justice Samuel Kudya who will preside over the case will determine whether or not Delta had right to erect advertising billboards on the property.
Also to be considered is whether or not Delta had sought Mr Mandizira’s consent to erect the advertising billboards on his property.
During the trial set for two days the judge will also consider weather Delta’s conduct caused any harm and if Mr Mandizira is to be paid damages and the quantum of damages if any.
Online Reporter