The Bulawayo High Court has dismissed a bid by engineering company Techmate Engineering (Pvt) Ltd to obtain summary debt judgment against Jena Mines (Pvt) Ltd operating in Silobela and Kwekwe, ruling that the mining company had raised a genuine dispute over the amount owed.
Justice Munamato Mutevedzi, sitting at the Bulawayo High Court, said Techmate’s claim was not “clear and unassailable” because the parties had never reached consensus on the final amount owed.
Techmate had approached the court seeking an order compelling Jena Mines to pay US$297 532, together with interest at 5% per annum from May 30, 2025, and collection commission.
The engineering company had entered into an agreement with Jena Mines to provide mining services, equipment and raw materials on credit, with payment due as the debt fell due.
The dispute arose after Techmate issued statements of account and the parties began haggling over the amount owed.
Techmate told the court that Jena Mines queried the account and requested variations, which it accepted.
The parties subsequently met in an effort to resolve the dispute, after which Techmate said Jena Mines acknowledged its indebtedness in correspondence dated April 1, 2025 and undertook to settle the debt by June.
When the deadline lapsed, Techmate issued a letter of demand on July 2, 2025 before issuing summons.
- SA name strong A side for Zim tour
- Cover-up feared in slain CCC activist’s case
- Cover-up feared in slain CCC activist’s case
- Storm clouds over Byo council
Keep Reading
Jena Mines entered appearance to defend and subsequently admitted owing only US$73 883.25, rejecting the balance claimed by Techmate.
Techmate argued that the mining company had no genuine defence and was merely attempting to delay payment.
Its lawyer, Innocent Mafirakureva, told the court that Jena Mines had never disputed the amount during earlier engagements and had even proposed a payment plan.
He also challenged the mining company's contention that the correspondence relied upon by Techmate had been exchanged on a “without prejudice” basis.
Techmate argued that Jena Mines did not dispute receiving the services, equipment and materials, but only challenged the final amount.
The company initially claimed collection commission at 10 percent but abandoned that part of its claim during the hearing, instead seeking the applicable tariff.
Jena Mines, however, argued that there was a genuine dispute requiring a full trial.
Its lawyer, Reginald Mutero, said the alleged acknowledgement of debt did not specify the amount owed and therefore could not constitute a liquid document capable of supporting summary judgment.
The company also argued that correspondence between the parties was part of settlement negotiations and had been conducted on a “without prejudice” basis.
Justice Mutevedzi agreed that the dispute could not be resolved through summary judgment.
He said while the contractual relationship between the companies and the fact that Techmate had rendered services and supplied mining equipment and materials were not disputed, the central issue was the quantum of the debt.
“The dispute between the parties is primarily centred on the quantum of the indebtedness,” the judge said.
He found that the alleged acknowledgement of debt contained in the April 1, 2025 correspondence did not clearly state the amount acknowledged.
“That on its own, diminishes its evidential value,” Justice Mutevedzi said.
He ruled that the document did not establish the full extent of Jena Mines’ indebtedness and therefore could not qualify as a liquid document capable of founding summary judgment.
The judge also faulted Techmate for failing to place sufficient primary evidence before the court to establish how it arrived at the US$297 532 figure.
“Where the amount is disputed, the evidentiary burden rests squarely on the applicant to place before the court, cogent and verifiable proof of the indebtedness,” he said.
Justice Mutevedzi said the evidence showed that there had been “haggling and discord” over the amount owed and that Techmate had itself adjusted its statement of account following representations from Jena Mines.
He said summary judgment could not be granted on the basis of a negotiated amount that the parties had never mutually agreed upon.
“One party cannot unilaterally impose a negotiated figure and then claim that the amount was indisputable,” the judge said.
The court also rejected Techmate’s reliance on the email correspondence as conclusively establishing its claim.
Justice Mutevedzi said a valid acknowledgement of debt could be created through a series of communications, but the correspondence in this case did not contain a clear, unequivocal and unambiguous admission of liability for a fixed amount.
He further found that the “without prejudice” argument raised by Jena Mines was not frivolous and itself constituted a triable issue.
Whether the correspondence enjoyed such privilege and whether it could ultimately be admitted into evidence would have to be properly ventilated at trial, he ruled.
“The present case is therefore not one in which the respondent must be shut out without being heard,” Justice Mutevedzi said.
He found that Jena Mines had disclosed a bona fide defence and had a reasonable possibility of success at trial.
The judge also rejected Techmate’s claim for collection commission.
He said the law did not permit collection commission to be claimed after summons had been issued where there was no prior agreement between the parties for payment of such commission.
Justice Mutevedzi cited the Law Society of Zimbabwe (Amendment) By-laws, 2014, which provide for collection commission in relation to uncontested trade debts.
He said collection commission was only applicable where monies were actually collected by the legal practitioner without coercion through court proceedings.
In this case, he said, Techmate’s lawyers had not recovered any money from Jena Mines.
“Collection commission can only be charged on monies actually collected by the legal practitioner,” the judge said.
The court nevertheless rejected Jena Mines’ bid for punitive costs, saying the circumstances did not justify costs on a higher scale.
Justice Mutevedzi said punitive costs were reserved for cases involving egregious conduct, irregularities or vexatious proceedings and should not be awarded merely because a party had requested them.
He ultimately dismissed Techmate’s summary judgment application and ordered the engineering company to pay Jena Mines’ costs of suit.
The matter now remains open for trial, where the parties will have an opportunity to present evidence on the disputed invoices, the alleged acknowledgement of debt, the status of the settlement correspondence and, ultimately, the amount actually owed.
