Online Reporter
Fidelis Munyoro
Chief Court Reporter
The High Court has ruled in favour of an application for absolution from the instance in a debt recovery case involving a claim of $830 776.61.
The court dismissed the matter on the grounds of the plaintiff’s lack of legal standing and the expiration of the claim under prescription laws.
The case was brought by de-registered lawyer Mr Muyengwa Motsi and involved Mr Ryan Alexander Garizio, M Garizio Properties (Pvt) Ltd, Zimbabwe Spring Steel (Pvt) Ltd and the Sheriff of Zimbabwe.
Justice Vivian Ndlovu presided over the matter and ultimately resolved it in favour of the defendants.
The dispute arose from a loan extended by EBC Mauritius Limited to Garizio, with the debt later ceded to Mr Motsi and his law firm, M.E. Motsi & Associates, in 2020.
Mr Motsi alleged that Mr Garizio and his associated entities failed to repay the loan and he sought recovery of the outstanding amount.
However, the defendants argued that the claim was invalid due to prescription, as the debt was due on or before January 15, 2020, but proceedings were only instituted in April 2023, beyond the three-year prescription period under Zimbabwean law.
Justice Ndlovu ruled that the summons issued in February 2023, and served at an incorrect address, did not interrupt the running of prescription.
“The summons issued and served at Whatman & Stewart in February 2023 was long after the matter had prescribed on 15 January 2023. It does not cure the fact that the claim had prescribed,” she said.
The court also found that Mr Motsi lacked the legal capacity to bring the claim.
While Mr Motsi initially testified that he acted in a representative capacity for his law firm, he later admitted under cross-examination that he was deregistered as a legal practitioner at the time.
“When Mr Motsi was deregistered as a legal practitioner, he lost his right to practise law. He cannot operate a law firm when he is deregistered,” Justice Ndlovu said.
“In his status, he cannot purport to exercise the rights of a partner at M.E. Motsi and Associates Legal Practitioners.”
The judge emphasised that these findings on prescription and locus standi were sufficient to dismiss the case, without addressing other issues raised by the defendants. She cited precedent, which allows courts to resolve cases on dispositive issues without addressing all arguments presented.
“No court will grant a claim in favour of a plaintiff who has no locus standi to bring the claim to court. Neither is there a court that will grant a claim that has prescribed,” Justice Ndlovu concluded.
The court dismissed Motsi’s claim with costs, upholding the defendants’ application for absolution from the instance.
