Supreme court dismisses Zemqos lawsuit against Cit...

Supreme court dismisses Zemqos lawsuit against City Parking

Zim Now Writer

In a significant legal setback, the Supreme Court has dismissed a US$10 million lawsuit filed by local company Zemqos Incorporated (Pvt) Ltd against City Parking. Zemqos had sought specific performance of a verbal contract for the supply and installation of an automated parking management system in Harare, or alternatively, damages for breach of contract.

The dispute arose from a verbal agreement between Zemqos and City Parking in 2014. Zemqos argued that City Parking had undertaken to allocate 5,000 parking bays for the installation of an automated system, to be done in phases over 15 years. While Zemqos installed the system on the initial 500 bays and supplied 200 handheld devices, it claimed that City Parking breached the agreement by failing to allocate the remaining 4,445 bays and using the automated system without paying license fees.

City Parking, however, denied entering into any agreement regarding the remaining bays and raised the special plea of prescription, arguing that Zemqos had filed the lawsuit beyond the statutory timeframe.

The High Court dismissed Zemqos's claim, finding no evidence to support its allegations of breach of contract and concluding that there was no contract to be specifically performed or canceled. The court also rejected Zemqos's assertion that the contract was supposed to run for 15 years, stating that no evidence had been adduced to support this contention.

Zemqos appealed the High Court's decision to the Supreme Court, arguing that the court had erred in its findings. However, the Supreme Court judges upheld the High Court's decision, ruling that the court had exercised its discretion judiciously in dismissing the claim for specific performance and other issues.

The judges emphasized that the terms and conditions of the contract were to be ascertained through the testimony of the witnesses who appeared before the High Court. The court had the privilege of assessing the witnesses and weighing their evidence, and its findings could not be lightly interfered with in the absence of gross irregularity.