Online Reporter
Fidelis Munyoro
Chief Court Reporter
The High Court has overturned a judgment ordering Zimgold Industries (Private) Limited to pay Mateveke Painters (Private) Limited US$35 695,08, sending the commercial dispute back to the Magistrates’ Court for a fresh trial before a different magistrate.
Justices Lucy Mungwari and Joseph Chilimbe found that the lower court materially misdirected itself in its treatment of a company witness, a US$600 acknowledgement of payment and documents relating to invoices and payments.
Writing for the court, Justice Mungwari said the appeal was not being allowed merely because the High Court might have reached a different conclusion on the facts.
“This is not a case in which intervention is justified merely because another court might prefer a different factual conclusion,” she said.
“The difficulty is that the court a quo’s process of evaluation was materially compromised.”
The dispute arose from painting services allegedly provided by Mateveke Painters to Zimgold and entities associated with it between January 2023 and December 2024.
Mateveke Painters claimed that it had rendered services worth US$60 127,78 but had been underpaid, leaving an alleged balance of US$35 695,08.
Zimgold denied liability, arguing that some invoices were estimates and that amounts were later adjusted after measurements, rates and previous payments had been reconciled.
The company maintained that the account had been settled, relying particularly on a US$600 payment made on January 16, 2025, which it said was acknowledged as full and final settlement.
Mateveke Painters disputed that interpretation, saying its principal, Mr Jephias Mateveke, had signed the acknowledgement in his personal capacity and that the payment related to painting work at the private residence of one of Zimgold’s directors.
The High Court found that the magistrate had nevertheless taken contradictory positions on the document, holding that it was not properly before the court because it had not been formally tendered as an exhibit, while at the same time considering its contents.
“If the document was truly not evidence, its contents could not properly be construed against the appellant,” Justice Mungwari said.
The court also criticised the magistrate’s treatment of Zimgold witness Mr James Mutyambizi, who had been found not to be properly before the court because he had not produced a board resolution authorising him to represent the company.
The High Court said the magistrate had confused corporate authority to conduct litigation with a witness’ competence to give evidence.
“Authority to litigate and competence to testify are conceptually different,” Justice Mungwari said.
“A company necessarily conducts its affairs through natural persons.”
The court found it was not necessary for an employee giving evidence about company transactions within his knowledge to produce a board resolution merely to testify.
It further found that the magistrate had compounded the error by disregarding Mr Mutyambizi’s evidence and then relying on portions of it when determining the merits.
“Evidence cannot rationally be discarded as incompetent and, in the same enquiry, selectively used against the party which led it,” the judge said.
The higher court also questioned the calculation of the alleged debt.
Although the invoices totalled US$60 127,78, while evidence referred to payments of US$22 836,61, the court said the invoices could not simply be aggregated without determining whether they had been revised, superseded or reduced by advance payments.
Zimgold had pointed to adjustments and annotations on invoices as evidence of reconciliation.
The High Court said those issues required a proper factual assessment at trial.
It declined to determine whether the US$600 acknowledgement constituted final settlement, saying the circumstances in which it was signed and its relationship to the disputed invoices remained unresolved.
“The capacity in which Mateveke signed, the relationship of that document to Invoices 563 and 564, the statement of account, the ledger entries, and the respondent’s explanation concerning the alleged private work are all matters which require coherent assessment at a properly conducted trial,” Justice Mungwari said.
The court consequently set aside the magistrate’s judgment and ordered a trial de novo before a different magistrate. It stressed that the ruling did not establish that either party had ultimately proved its case.
“Remittal does not amount to a determination that the respondent’s claim is meritorious,” the judge said. “Neither is it a finding that the appellant has proved full and final settlement.”
Mateveke Painters was ordered to pay the costs of the appeal.
