BULAWAYO-BASED Zanu PF activist and businessman, Ernest Marima has been taken to court by the city council over unpaid bills amounting to $75 000.
BY SILAS NKALA
The city council, through its lawyers R Ndlovu and Company, is suing Marima and his company, E Marima Investment, (Pvt) Limited, over the debt.
“Plaintiff claims for payment of $75 257,58 by the total arrears rates incurred by the defendant in respect of number 43 Fife Street property in Bulawayo in the period from November 2009 up to June 2014, which despite demand, defendant has refused or neglected to pay. Payment of interest a temporare morae [from due date] on the sum of $75 257, 58 at the prescribed rate of interest calculated from July 18, 2014 by date of demand to date of payment,” part of the summons read.
The council claimed Marima had on several occasions acknowledged his arrears, but failed to pay.
“The defendant has always acknowledged the arrears. On July 18, 2014 the plaintiff, through its legal practitioners, wrote to the defendant, demanding payment of the arrears. The defendant failed or neglected to pay the arrears and charges in full. The plaintiff, therefore, claims payment of the arrears rates.”
But Marima, in his opposing papers, accused the local authority of cooking up the figures and asked the court to dismiss the application.
He said the council had been continuously increasing rates without justification or explanation to him.
- Chamisa under fire over US$120K donation
- Mavhunga puts DeMbare into Chibuku quarterfinals
- Pension funds bet on Cabora Bassa oilfields
- Councils defy govt fire tender directive
Keep Reading
“The respondent cannot be expected to keep paying rates at the mercy of the applicant,” Marima said. “For example, the applicant is obliged to tell the respondent that he is charging him so much for water and so much for refuse collection. The applicant continues to increase rates arbitrarily even in the months before where the respondent discharged rates with large amounts of money. The applicant continued to increase rates with amounts that the applicant cannot even explain.”
He said interest charged by the council was not in terms of prescribed rates under the Interest Act.
“The respondent denies that he owes the applicant the amount alleged and it continues to pay responsible rates. The conduct of the applicant amounts to extortion and the applicant is arbitrarily cooking figures that it has failed to justify to the respondent and this court.”
