admingranted the former a reprieve to execute an earlier court judgement nullifying the cancellation of the agreement pending a Supreme Court challenge.
Pending determination of the Supreme Court challenge, the tripartite agreement between Trustco, Econet and First Mutual Life remains valid and operational.
According to the deal that resulted in Econet subscribers getting free life cover and bonus points against purchase of airtime, Trustco provided the software and maintenance services while Econet would purchase life cover from FML.
The deal was “cancelled” early this year after the parties had a misunderstanding over payment of royalties. Econet reportedly failed to meet its financial obligations according to the agreement and Trustco threatened to cancel the agreement if payment was not made within 14 days.
When the two weeks lapsed, the court heard that Econet then went on to “accept” the threatened cancellation before Trustco actually did the canceling.
The High Court in June granted an urgent chamber application by Trustco and nullified the said cancellation saying the agreement was still valid. Advocate Thabani Mpofu appeared for Trustco while Advocate Adrian De Bourbon represented Econet. Ms Doreen Gapare of Scanlen and Holderness acted for First Mutual Life. That prompted Econet to challenge the decision at the Supreme Court.
Pending determination of the appeal, Trustco lawyer Adv Mpofu instructed by Gill Godlonton and Gerrans obtained an order allowing the company to resume operations as per the tripartite agreement.
In a High Court judgment availed last week, Justice Susan Mavangira said Adv Mpofu had convinced the court that his client deserved to be granted the order.
“In my view, the balance of convenience or hardship favours the applicants,” said Justice Mavangira.
“It appears to me that the applicants did place before this court adequate justification for a finding that the preponderance of equities favours the granting of the relief that they seek and that they must therefore succeed.”
Econet on the other hand, Justice Mavangira said, had not established sufficiently compelling grounds why the court should rule in its favour.
Online Reporter