The High Court has ordered Local Government, Public Works and National Housing Minister July Moyo to pay $306 793 to the Zimbabwe Electricity Transmission and Distribution Company (ZETDC) for electricity supplied at his Mavesere Farm in Kwekwe.
High Court judge Justice Mary Zimba-Dube granted the order in favour of ZETDC on October 15 after the parties signed a deed of settlement.
“The defendant (Moyo) shall pay the sum of $306 793 to the plaintiff (ZETDC) together with interest thereon at the prescribed rate of interest calculated from May 13, 2019 to date of payment, both dates inclusive,” said Justice Dube.
“The amount shall be paid in terms of deed of settlement made and entered by and between the parties. The defendant shall pay the plaintiff’s cost of suit.”
ZETDC took Minister Moyo to the High Court over a US$414 775,79 debt, which he denied owing.
“The defendant has failed, neglected or refused to pay the above sum/amount despite demand,” said ZETDC.
“By reason of the said failure, neglect or refusal to pay the above sum/amount, the defendant is obliged to pay the same with interest thereon at the prescribed rate which is currently five percent per annum.
“Defendant specifically avers that the customer information printout does not correctly reflect the electricity consumed by defendant. Defendant denies utilising the electricity reflected in Annexure A. Plaintiff is accordingly put to the strict proof of the fact that they consumed the said electricity.
“Alternatively, defendant avers that plaintiff’s claim has prescribed. The alleged claim being for a debt or liquidated demand is now prescribed. More specifically, the claims from February 11, 2013 to May 11, 2017 are all prescribed.
“Defendant further avers that the figures inserted in Annexure A are fictitious, as evidenced by the claim of US$155 414,27 which appears on invoice number 356572323 dated July 23, 2014 and the claim for US$11 566,33 which appears on invoice number 536872434 dated November 14, 2017.”
In the plaintiff’s replication, ZETDC vowed to prove that it was owed the amount being claimed. The utility insists that the debt was acknowledged and periodic payments were made.
“The contract of supply of power is current and ongoing, plaintiff continues to supply while defendant continues to receive power, on the other hand,” read the papers.