NEW: Supreme Court grants Trans Africa Oil leave to appeal

Fidelis Munyoro

Chief Court Reporter

The Supreme Court has granted a British Virgin Islands-registered company, Trans Africa Oil Limited’s application for condonation, clearing the way for the fuel supplier to appeal a High Court judgment that dismissed its US$1,47 million claim against Willred Minerals and Energy (Private) Limited.

The court, sitting in Harare, extended the time within which Trans Africa must file and serve its notice of appeal, ordering that this be done within seven days.

There was no order as to costs.

The ruling breathes new life into a dispute centred on whether a commercial fuel agreement concluded before obtaining Exchange Control approval was void from the outset.

Trans Africa had supplied fuel worth US$1,471,423.54 to Willred on credit between July 2021 and November 2022, while Halgor Estate (Private) Limited stood as guarantor and co-principal debtor and secured the obligations through a mortgage bond.

When Willred failed to pay, Trans Africa sued.

The respondents countered with a special plea, arguing that the agreement was illegal because the parties had entered into and partly performed it before obtaining the approval required under section 11(1) of the Exchange Control Regulations.

The High Court accepted that argument and dismissed the claim.

Trans Africa then approached the Supreme Court after missing the appeal deadline, but its road to the appellate court was complicated by several defective applications for condonation, all struck off the roll.

Supreme Court judge of appeal, Justice Chiweshe, acknowledged that the delay was “inordinate” and found the explanation unsatisfactory.

The court held that the intended appeal raised genuine legal questions deserving determination, particularly whether subsequent Exchange Control approval could affect the validity or enforceability of an agreement entered into before approval.

The court also considered the reasoning in the recent High Court decision in “Levi v Magaya” persuasive on the broader question of illegality and parties seeking to avoid contractual obligations after receiving substantial benefits.

The Supreme Court stressed that it was not deciding the merits of the appeal, but only whether Trans Africa had an arguable case.

The substantive battle over the US$1,47 million fuel debt will now move to the appellate stage.