FORMER Water Resources Development and Management minister Samuel Sipepa Nkomo and his wife Roseline, who are being sued by National Merchant Bank (NMB) Limited for more than $143 000 after they allegedly failed to repay a loan, have filed their notice to defend the summons at the Bulawayo High Court.
In the summons, which were filed sometime in February this year, their company Sweetshore Investment (Pvt) Ltd is first defendant, while Nkomo and his wife are second and third defendants, respectively.
Following the serving of the summons to the defendants, Nkomo and his wife, on behalf of their company, filed a notice to defend the summons at the Bulawayo High Court, indicating that they would want to defend their case in court.
The date of the hearing is yet to be set.
NMB bank summons gleaned by the Southern Eye yesterday state that, “The plaintiff and Sweetshore Investments (Pvt) Ltd entered into a credit facility agreement in terms of which the company was afforded credit facilities including overdraft, revolving acceptance credits, guarantees and cash loans.
“Sweetshore Investments utilised the credit facility and accessed funds or capital, which was not to exceed $70 000 at any given time”.
The capital amount attracted 24% interest per annum as per the agreement.
“As at December 3 2014, the capital debt amounted to $78 779,58 and the interest amounted to $64 860,26.
“Samuel Sipepa Nkomo and Roseline Nkomo signed co-principal agreements, where they bound themselves to be co-principal debtors with the company for the due payment of the amount owed by Sweetshore Investments,” read the summons.
NMB indicated that despite demanding the payment, the defendants failed to pay.
The bank is claiming an interest at prescribed rate of 24% per annum from January 1 2015 to the date of full payment, as well as the cost of suit at attorney-client scale.
“The bank seeks an order for payment of $143 639,84 on account of the loan advanced to the company with the Sipepa Nkomo couple, interposed as co-principal debtors, which sum despite demand, the defendants have failed to pay,” said the bank’s lawyers.