High Court orders fresh trial in US$35,695 ZimGold unpaid painting work dispute

A US$35 695.08 claim against ZimGold Industries over alleged unpaid painting work has been sent back to the magistrates’ court for a fresh trial after the High Court found serious errors in the way the case was handled.

The Commercial Division of the High Court overturned a judgment that had ordered ZimGold to pay Mateveke Painters (Private) Limited US$35 695.08, ruling that the magistrates’ court had materially misdirected itself in assessing both the evidence and the parties’ competing versions of the disputed account.

The matter has now been remitted for a trial de novo before a different magistrate, meaning the dispute must be heard afresh.

The High Court also ordered Mateveke Painters to pay Zimgold’s costs of the appeal.

Mateveke Painters had sued ZimGold over painting services it said it provided between January 2023 and December 2024, including work allegedly carried out for ZimGold and its related companies, Packwell Zimbabwe and Zim Pure Waters.

The painting company claimed that although it had completed the work satisfactorily, ZimGold allegedly reduced the amounts on its invoices and made only partial payments.

It therefore sought US$35 695.08 on a quantum meruit basis, essentially claiming the reasonable value of services it said remained unpaid.

Zimgold denied owing the money and maintained that the amounts due had been settled.

The company argued that the invoices relied upon by Mateveke were not necessarily final figures because they involved estimates, subsequent measurements, agreed rates and deductions for payments already made.

ZimGold also relied on a US$600 payment made on January 16, 2025, which it said was accompanied by an acknowledgement of full and final settlement.

Mateveke disputed that interpretation, arguing that the acknowledgement had been signed by Jephias Mateveke personally in connection with separate painting work at the private residence of a Zimgold director and did not settle the company’s commercial account.

The magistrates’ court nevertheless found in favour of Mateveke.

It relied on invoices totalling US$60 127.78 and payments amounting to US$22 836.61 and ultimately awarded Mateveke US$35 695.08.

But on appeal, Justices Mungwari and Chilimbe found that the lower court had mishandled critical aspects of the evidence.

One of the major issues concerned ZimGold employee James Mutyambizi, whose evidence was questioned by the magistrates’ court because he did not produce a board resolution authorising him to testify on behalf of the company.

The High Court rejected that approach, drawing a distinction between a company’s authority to litigate and an individual’s competence to give evidence about facts within his personal knowledge.

“Authority to litigate and competence to testify are conceptually different,” the judges said.

The court held that a company necessarily acts through natural persons and that there was no requirement for an employee giving factual evidence to produce a board resolution merely to establish his competence as a witness.

The judges said the magistrates’ court had effectively rejected Mutyambizi’s evidence as incompetent but then relied on portions of the same evidence when calculating the alleged debt.

“Evidence cannot rationally be discarded as incompetent and, in the same enquiry, selectively used against the party which led it,” the High Court said.

The handling of the January 16, 2025 acknowledgement was another major concern.

The magistrates’ court held that the document was not properly before it because it had not been formally tendered as an exhibit.

However, the same court proceeded to interpret and consider the contents of the document.

The High Court found that approach contradictory.

“If the document was truly not evidence, its contents could not properly be construed against the appellant,” the judges said.

The High Court said the acknowledgement had been specifically referred to during the proceedings, put to a witness and fully canvassed by the parties.

It therefore had to be considered together with the other documentary evidence relating to the disputed account.

The judges also questioned the lower court’s treatment of the invoices.

The magistrates’ court had effectively treated the gross invoice amounts as fixed and enforceable figures before arriving at the amount it believed remained outstanding.

But ZimGold had pointed to documents showing that some invoices had been revised or contained deductions and annotations relating to previous payments.

The High Court cited Invoice 037, which had subsequently been revised to approximately US$942, as an example of why the invoices could not simply be aggregated at their original face values.

Invoice 528 also contained annotations relating to previous payments and deductions.

Those issues, the High Court said, required proper examination before any conclusion could be reached on the amount, if any, still owed by ZimGold.

“The fact that a document is admitted into evidence does not necessarily establish the truth or legal consequence of every entry on its face,” the court said.

The judges said Mateveke, as the party claiming the money, bore the burden of proving the amount allegedly owed, while ZimGold’s defence of payment and settlement also had to be properly evaluated.

The appeal court, however, stopped short of determining which side was ultimately correct.

It said the evidential problems meant that the case had to be reheard rather than decided on appeal.

“Remittal does not amount to a determination that the respondent’s claim is meritorious. Neither is it a finding that the appellant has proved full and final settlement,” the judges said.

The High Court consequently allowed ZimGold’s appeal, set aside the magistrates’ court judgment and ordered that the matter be heard afresh before a different magistrate.

The financial figures at the centre of the dispute include the US$35 695.08 claim awarded by the lower court, US$60 127.78 in invoices relied upon by Mateveke, US$22 836.61 in payments referred to during the proceedings, and the disputed US$600 payment which ZimGold said represented full and final settlement.

The High Court did not make a final finding that ZimGold owes Mateveke any of those amounts.

The judgment was delivered in the Commercial Division of the High Court in Harare, with the appeal allowed on May 27, 2026 and the reasons for judgment issued on September 3, 2026.

The post High Court orders fresh trial in US$35,695 ZimGold unpaid painting work dispute appeared first on NewZimbabwe.com.