The High Court has ordered a fresh trial in a US$35,695.08 dispute between ZimGold Industries and Mateveke Painters (Private) Limited after finding several irregularities in the manner in which the case was handled by the magistrates’ court.
📰 For this and more exclusive stories, read our weekly digital print edition.
Read E-PaperThe Commercial Division of the High Court set aside a ruling that had ordered ZimGold to pay Mateveke Painters US$35,695.08 for alleged unpaid painting services.
The matter has been referred back to the magistrates’ court for a trial de novo before a different magistrate. Mateveke Painters was also ordered to meet ZimGold’s costs of the appeal.
Mateveke had taken ZimGold to court over painting work allegedly carried out between January 2023 and December 2024. The company said the work covered ZimGold and related businesses, including Packwell Zimbabwe and Zim Pure Waters.
According to Mateveke, the work was completed but ZimGold allegedly reduced some invoice amounts and only made partial payments. The painting company consequently sought US$35,695.08, arguing that this represented the reasonable value of services that remained unpaid.
ZimGold disputed the claim, maintaining that it had settled what was owed.
The company argued that the invoices presented by Mateveke were not final amounts because some were based on estimates, later measurements, agreed rates and deductions for payments already made.
ZimGold also relied on a US$600 payment made on January 16, 2025, which it said was accompanied by an acknowledgement confirming full and final settlement.
Mateveke challenged that interpretation, saying the acknowledgement was signed by Jephias Mateveke in relation to separate painting work carried out at the private residence of a ZimGold director and did not settle the company’s commercial account.
The magistrates’ court ultimately ruled in favour of Mateveke, relying on invoices totalling US$60,127.78 and payments of US$22,836.61 before arriving at the US$35,695.08 award.
ZimGold appealed the decision.
In their judgment, Justices Mungwari and Chilimbe identified several problems with how the evidence had been assessed.
One issue involved ZimGold employee James Mutyambizi, whose evidence had been questioned by the lower court because he did not produce a board resolution authorising him to testify for the company.
The High Court said the magistrates’ court had confused two separate issues, namely a company’s authority to conduct litigation and an individual’s ability to give evidence based on facts within their personal knowledge.
“Authority to litigate and competence to testify are conceptually different,” the judges said.
The court found that an employee does not need a board resolution simply to establish his competence to testify about matters within his knowledge.
The judges also criticised the lower court for rejecting Mutyambizi’s evidence as incompetent while relying on parts of the same evidence when calculating the alleged outstanding debt.
“Evidence cannot rationally be discarded as incompetent and, in the same enquiry, selectively used against the party which led it,” the High Court said.
The judges also raised concerns over the treatment of the January 16, 2025 acknowledgement.
Although the magistrates’ court considered the document had not been formally produced as an exhibit, it nevertheless went on to interpret its contents.
The High Court found that approach inconsistent, noting that the document had been referred to during the proceedings, put to a witness and discussed by both parties.
The judges said it therefore needed to be considered alongside the other documents relating to the disputed account.
The handling of the invoices also came under scrutiny.
The High Court noted that some of the invoices contained revisions, deductions and annotations showing previous payments. Invoice 037, for example, had later been revised to about US$942, while Invoice 528 contained references to payments and deductions.
The judges said these details needed to be properly examined before determining whether any amount remained outstanding.
The court stressed that admitting a document into evidence does not automatically establish the accuracy or legal effect of every figure or entry contained in it.
Mateveke, as the party claiming payment, still had to establish the amount allegedly owed, while ZimGold’s claims of payment and full settlement also had to be properly assessed.
The High Court did not determine whether Mateveke was ultimately entitled to the money or whether ZimGold had fully settled the account.
Instead, it held that the problems in the assessment of the evidence made a fresh hearing necessary.
“Remittal does not amount to a determination that the respondent’s claim is meritorious. Neither is it a finding that the appellant has proved full and final settlement,” the judges said.
The appeal was consequently allowed, the magistrates’ judgment was set aside and the dispute was remitted for a fresh trial before a different magistrate.
The case involves disputed figures of US$35,695.08, US$60,127.78 in invoices, US$22,836.61 in recorded payments and the contested US$600 payment.
The High Court’s decision therefore does not establish that ZimGold owes Mateveke Painters US$35,695.08.
The appeal was allowed on May 27, 2026, with the reasons for judgment issued on September 3, 2026.
