adminscholarship by the company to study in South Africa failed to return home and work for the company as agreed.
Fortune Makgatho was bonded by the company and sent to the University of Cape Town where he studied for a Bachelor of Science degree in Actuarial Science and he was supposed to come back to Zimbabwe and work for Old Mutual for four years after which he could leave.
Fortune’s father Mr Daniel Makgatho signed the agreement as surety and co-principal debtor and he is now battling to stop the attachment of his Kwekwe house.
Mr Makgatho through his lawyer Advocate Lewis Uriri, has appealed to the Supreme Court challenging the High Court judgement granted in favour of Old Mutual in 2006.
The High Court ordered Mr Makgatho to pay back R201 750,08 and Z$121 518,64 as fees, airfares and other allowances spent on Fortune’s academic requirements while at the University of Cape Town.
Justice Samuel Kudya found that Mr Makgatho was liable for settling the debt. Fortune commenced his studies in Cape Town after entering an agreement with Old Mutual.
As part of the agreement, he was expected to excel in the key actuarial science courses with at least an upper second class pass while there were no conditions on the other subjects.
Failure to meet the conditions would result in Old Mutual withdrawing the scholarship.
He was also expected to return to Zimbabwe and work for Old Mutual for four years, the equivalent to the number of years he spent at university.
According to the company, Fortune failed to perform to expectation by getting lower grades on some of the main courses resulting in the company withdrawing the scholarship.
The company contends that when Fortune completed his degree programme he was supposed to return to Zimbabwe and work for Old Mutual with effect from 2001.
Up to now, Old Mutual claims Mr Makgatho has not paid the money and the company obtained a High Court order for repayment of the debt.
In the Supreme Court appeal, Mr Makgatho argues that he was never informed of his son’s unsatisfactory performance that led to the withdrawal of the scholarship adding that it was Old Mutual that breached the agreement.
He argues that the High Court erred in granting the order.
Mr Makgatho stated that his son refused to work for Old Mutual following a breach of contract by the company.
He cited some inconsistencies in the evidence of Old Mutual saying at one point the insurance firm accused his son of unsatisfactory performance and on the other hand, claims he should have come to work for them.
However, Old Mutual, supported the High Court judge saying the judgement was properly arrived at.
Old Mutual counter-argues that it had no obligation at law, to inform Mr Makgatho of the breach of contract prior to institution of legal proceedings.
The company maintains that Fortune was offered employment, but decided not to come back and work for Old Mutual.
It is the company’s contention that the fact that Mr Makgatho bonded himself as surety makes him inseparable from his son and he did not deserve to be further advised of the developments in the matter.
The matter is yet to be set down for hearing in the Supreme Court.
Online Reporter