Fidelis Munyoro
Chief Court Reporter
SETWEB Enterprises (Private) Limited has won a High Court battle to stop a US$26 500 counterclaim brought against it by Makunde School Development Committee after a magistrate allowed the committee to pursue the money despite it not being a party to the original case.
Justice Rogers Manyangadze set aside the decision permitting the counterclaim to proceed, ruling that Makunde had been improperly introduced into proceedings in which Setweb had sued Nyahuni Mission School for US$4 121 over building materials supplied to the institution.
The dispute began when Setweb approached the Magistrates Court seeking payment for the materials. Nyahuni successfully argued that it was not a legal person capable of being sued, resulting in Setweb’s claim being struck off the roll.
Makunde then entered the proceedings with a counterclaim alleging that Setweb had received US$26 500 in error.
The magistrate allowed the committee’s claim to proceed, prompting Setweb to approach the High Court for a review of the decision.
Justice Manyangadze found that Makunde had not been a party to the original proceedings and had been introduced without an application for joinder.
“The entity that brought the counterclaim was Makunde School Development Committee. It was not a party to the above-cited case,” the judge said.
He ruled that allowing the counterclaim to proceed in those circumstances amounted to a gross procedural irregularity.
The court also questioned the decision to allow Nyahuni to pursue the counterclaim after it had already been found incapable of being sued in the original action.
Justice Manyangadze said the proceedings could not be allowed to stand where the counterclaim had emerged from a procedurally defective process.
Makunde had argued that a counterclaim was a separate juridical act under the Magistrates’ Court (Civil) Rules, 2019. It also challenged Setweb’s decision to seek a review rather than appeal.
But the judge dismissed the preliminary objection, finding that the complaint concerned procedural irregularities falling within the High Court’s review jurisdiction.
The court set aside the portion of the magistrate’s March 25, 2025 decision that allowed the counterclaim to proceed and ordered that Makunde’s claim also be struck off the roll.
Makunde was ordered to pay Setweb’s legal costs. The ruling did not determine whether the alleged US$26 500 overpayment occurred. It addressed whether the counterclaim had been properly brought within the original proceedings.
