The High Court of Zimbabwe has dismissed an appeal by Design Cargo Logistics (Pvt) Ltd and Julius Bvochora in a contractual dispute involving a Ministry of Defence cargo consignment, confirming a lower court ruling that the appellants were the principal contracting parties and are liable for damages arising from non-delivery of equipment.

The appeal, heard in Harare under case number HCH 1237/25, was determined by Justice Neville Wamambo and Deputy Judge President Mawadze.

The dispute arose after La Cargo Logistics (Private) Limited engaged the appellants in April 2022 to facilitate transportation of three excavators from Durban, South Africa, at an agreed cost of US$45 000.

According to court records, payment was made in full upfront. However, the respondent alleged that an additional US$5 000 was later demanded and paid under disputed circumstances.

The respondent further submitted that the final excavator was not delivered due to complications involving a third-party subcontractor, forcing it to pay an additional ZAR380 000 to secure release of the machinery and avoid potential allegations of theft involving a Ministry of Defence consignment.

Design Cargo Logistics and Bvochora argued that they were not contracting principals but merely intermediaries who introduced the respondent to a South Africa-based transporter. They denied liability for both the additional US$5 000 payment and the subsequent costs incurred.

In its judgment, the High Court upheld findings of the court a quo, ruling that the appellants’ conduct and communications created the clear impression that they were the contracting principals.

The bench found that references such as “our guy” in correspondence, together with payment instructions issued directly by the appellants, established a binding contractual relationship under the doctrine of apparent authority.

The court held that attempts by the appellants to later characterise themselves as facilitators were inconsistent with what it described as the “functional reality” of the transaction.

Judges also rejected arguments that involvement of a third-party transporter or an acknowledgement of debt amounted to novation or transferred liability away from the appellants.

Instead, the court ruled that subsequent arrangements made by the respondent were collateral measures taken to mitigate losses caused by the appellants’ failure to ensure delivery of the cargo.

The High Court further upheld punitive costs against the appellants, finding their defence constituted bad-faith litigation.

The court noted that the appellants failed to respond to key complaints during the transaction period and only advanced their defence after legal proceedings had begun, resulting in unnecessary expense and hardship for the respondent.

Justice Wamambo emphasised that punitive costs are justified where litigation conduct becomes vexatious or abusive.

“Punitive costs may be awarded even where a litigant genuinely believes in the justice of their cause, if their conduct places the opposing party under unnecessary trouble and expense which ought not to be borne,” the judge said.

The appeal was dismissed with costs on the legal practitioner and client scale, leaving intact the earlier ruling holding Design Cargo Logistics (Pvt) Ltd and its co-appellant jointly liable for the disputed payments and related losses.