The High Court of Zimbabwe has dismissed a claim by a Mauritius-based agrochemical company, CIT Chem I.O.I (Private) Limited, against Farmgate (Private) Limited and its holding company, Mulholland Market (Private) Limited, ruling that the alleged debt had already been settled in earlier proceedings.

In a judgment delivered by Justice Vivian Ndlovu in Harare, the court found that CIT Chem had failed to prove the existence of a valid agreement with the defendants for the supply of agrochemicals on credit.

CIT Chem, the plaintiff, represented by Honey and Blanckenberg, had sought payment of US$116,747.43, together with interest, and an order declaring a piece of land in Chipinge executable after it was pledged as security.

 The court held that no enforceable contract existed between the parties and that the plaintiff had not provided sufficient evidence to establish that the defendants were indebted to it.

The dispute arose from allegations that Farmgate had received agrochemicals on a 90-day rolling credit facility, with Mulholland Market pledging immovable property as security. CIT Chem argued that Farmgate defaulted on payments and that negotiations to settle the debt had failed.

The company relied on account statements, invoices and email correspondence, as well as testimony from its technical director, Ian Ross Waters, who claimed the debt was distinct from a prior matter resolved under case number HCHC 763/23.

The defendants, represented by Chitsa and Masvaya Law Chambers, denied any direct contractual relationship with the plaintiff, maintaining that all agrochemical supplies were made to Interfresh Limited, a separate entity.

Through their director and chairperson, Mohammed Jassat, they argued that the plaintiff’s claim amounted to an attempt to recover a debt that had already been settled.

They pointed to a deed of settlement concluded in HCHC 763/23, under which Interfresh Limited and Broadbridge Investments (Private) Limited agreed to pay US$300,000 in full and final settlement of claims that had initially been brought jointly and severally against multiple parties, including the current defendants.

In assessing the evidence, the court noted material inconsistencies in the plaintiff’s case, particularly regarding whether a single account or separate accounts existed for the supply of agrochemicals.

Justice Ndlovu found that the account relied upon by CIT Chem in the present matter was identical to the one settled in the earlier proceedings, undermining the claim that a separate outstanding debt remained.

The court also observed that the plaintiff failed to call its financial director, who was responsible for preparing the account statements, despite his availability.

“The plaintiff has failed to substantiate the origin of the account from which it claims the disputed amount. The account tendered in this case is identical to the one referenced in HCHC 763/23, which significantly undermines the plaintiff’s position,” Justice Ndlovu said.

“Without distinct and compelling evidence demonstrating that the first defendant still owes the claimed amount, as well as evidence indicating that the settlement made in HCHC 763/23 was exclusive of any debt owed by the first defendant, the plaintiff’s assertion lacks merit.

“The absence of a valid agreement, coupled with the failure to provide convincing evidence to support the claim, leads to the conclusion that the first defendant is not indebted to the plaintiff for the amount of US$116,747.43.”

The court further ruled that since the underlying debt had been settled in HCHC 763/23, there was no basis for declaring the Chipinge property executable.

As a result, the claim against both Farmgate and Mulholland Market was dismissed in its entirety, with costs awarded against the plaintiff on the ordinary scale.

Justice Ndlovu noted that the plaintiff had failed to establish any existing liability on the part of the defendants and was pursuing a claim without legal foundation.