Online Reporter
Fidelis Munyoro
Chief Court Writer
The High Court has dismissed a lawsuit against real estate firm Pam Golding Properties, ruling that the company had met its obligations under an agency agreement.
Justice Faith Mushure, delivering the judgment, found that Mr Zviko Murahwi’s allegations of breach of contract were without merit and his claim for US$168 127.02 could not stand.
The dispute arose from the 2018 sale of Stand 373 Athlone Township, which Mr Murahwi and his wife sold for US$190 000 to raise money for their disabled child’s medical expenses.
He alleged that Pam Golding had failed to remit the proceeds to his South African bank account as agreed, accusing the firm of negligence, withholding funds and failing to cancel the sale when currency reforms complicated the transfer.
Pam Golding denied the claims, arguing it had discharged its duties by transferring the money to the conveyancers, IEG Musimbe and Partners, on Mr Murahwi’s own instructions.
The firm maintained that any delays in remitting the proceeds were due to prevailing regulatory requirements and liquidity challenges.
Justice Mushure upheld this position, ruling that once Mr Murahwi instructed Pam Golding to transfer the funds to the law firm, the agency relationship was terminated.
The law firm confirmed it was holding the money in trust and had advised Mr Murahwi to approach the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe (RBZ) to expedite the transfer but he failed to do so.
“The defendant cannot be expected to comply with instructions it no longer holds. The plaintiff’s instruction to the conveyancers superseded the mandate given to the defendant,” Justice Mushure said.
The judge also rejected Mr Murahwi’s claim that Pam Golding should have cancelled the sale, stressing that the company, as an agent, had no authority to enforce or terminate the agreement between the seller and the buyer.
Drafting the contract, she added, did not make Pam Golding a party to it.
Mr Murahwi’s credibility was also questioned during the trial, with the court finding inconsistencies in his testimony.
Justice Mushure said he had attempted to mislead the court on critical issues, including the scope of the agency agreement and the appointment of the conveyancers.
“The plaintiff’s lack of candour is damaging to his case. A litigant who withholds or distorts material facts cannot expect the court’s protection,” she remarked.
In dismissing the lawsuit, Justice Mushure ordered Mr Murahwi to pay Pam Golding’s legal costs on a punitive scale.
She criticised his decision to pursue the case despite knowing the funds were with the conveyancers and his failure to resolve the matter directly with the RBZ.
“Perhaps, had the plaintiff heeded advice to follow up with the RBZ, a stitch in time would have saved nine,” the judge observed.
Online Reporter