Tanyanyiwa to pay former co-director US$72 000

Lawrence Bernard Gwarada – putting to rest the long-drawn ownership wrangle for Douglas Warriors Football Club.
Tanyanyiwa, who was having financial problems, partnered Gwarada in the running of the football club following a deal that compelled Gwarada to pay US$49 000 for the purchase of a 49 percent shareholding in the club.
The deal was cancelled at a later stage following misunderstandings, prompting Gwarada to issue out summons claiming the US$36 807 he paid for the purchase of shares and another US$35 533 he paid as operational costs.
Justice Andrew Mutema granted Gwarada’s application saying he should be reimbursed his money with costs.
A counter-claim of US$32 000 by Tanyanyiwa – the money he said should be paid by Gwarada for the breach of the contract – was also dismissed.
“In the result, the court’s order is as follows:
“The defendants (Tanyanyiwa and the Douglas Warriors FC’s ) counter-claim is hereby dismissed.
“Judgment be and is hereby entered for the plaintiff against both defendants jointly and severally, the one paying the other to be absolved:
“In the sum of US$72 340. Interest thereon at the prescribed rate from the date of summons to the date of payment in full,” part of the order read.
Harare lawyer Godfrey Mamvura of Scanlen and Holderness appeared for Gwarada while Moses Kamudefwere represented Tanyanyiwa and the club.
The matter started in 2008 when Tanyanyiwa experienced financial problems in running the club.
He entered into a partnership with Gwarada.
According to the agreement, Gwarada was asked to pay US$49 000 for the purchase of 49 000 shares that translated to 49 percent shareholding in the football club.
During the 2009 soccer season, Gwarada was supposed to pay 40 percent of the operational costs while Tanyanyiwa was to pay 60 percent.
Pursuant to the agreement, Gwarada paid US$36 807 for the purchase of the shares and US$35 533 as contributions towards the operational costs.
In November 2009, the partnership deal collapsed.
Gwarada attributed the collapse of the partnership to Tanyanyiwa who started claiming that the partnership was for the 2009 season only, contrary to the agreement.
Gwarada argued that the partnership had no time limit and that shares could not be bought only for one season.
He also argued that the purchased shares were supposed to be transferred to him.
Justice Mutema hailed Gwarada and his witnesses for giving evidence “in a clear and straightforward manner” saying they were credible witnesses.
The witnesses according to the court, corroborated each other on most aspects.
Tanyanyiwa, according to Justice Mutema, was a “very poor witness”.
“He seemed apprehensive and would dodge questions under cross-examination.
“Questions had to be put to be repeated and his answers to material questions were evasive.
“I gained the impression that he is a sly character…”
Justice Mutema added that Fredrick Gijima – a Harare lawyer who testified on behalf of Tanyanyiwa – also fared badly.
He said the witnesses contradicted each other and Gijima even contradicted himself. It was also the court’s finding that there was a fraud on the part of Tanyanyiwa and the club to an extent that an innocent Gwarada incurred a loss.