Source: Chombo secures Supreme Court victory – herald
Fidelis Munyoro
Chief Court Reporter
IN a turn of events that has captivated the legal arena, Mashonaland West Provincial Affairs and Devolution Minister Marian Chombo has emerged victorious in her high-stakes appeal at the Supreme Court.
The courtroom battle unfolded as she overcame her former legal champion, Beatrice Mtetwa, in a dispute over US$100 000 legal fees claim — a case that has grabbed headlines.
The Supreme Court this week overturned the High Court’s ruling, which had ordered Chombo to pay the full amount plus interest.
The case has now been remitted to the High Court for reconsideration, specifically to determine the impact of Statutory Instrument 33 of 2019 (SI 33/19), which converted US-dollar debts to Zimbabwean dollars at a 1:1 rate.
The decision brings a temporary resolution to a legal saga that began in 2011, when Minister Chombo engaged Mtetwa’s firm, Mtetwa & Nyambirai Legal Practitioners, to represent her in her divorce proceedings.
The dispute eventually escalated over the US$100 000 fees charged by Mtetwa, which Minister Chombo described as excessive, unquantified and untaxed.
The Supreme Court’s judgment, delivered by Justice Tendai Uchena, highlighted procedural errors and unresolved legal questions in the High Court’s decision.
Justice Uchena noted that the lower court had failed to address a crucial point of law regarding the currency in which the debt should be paid under SI 33/19.
“The issue of the currency of payment is an ordinary point of law, which need not be specially pleaded. It can be raised at any stage of the proceedings and even on appeal,” stated Justice Uchena.
He further criticised the High Court for declining to address the statutory currency conversion issue, which had been raised during the trial.
Justice Uchena also highlighted the legal framework around the defence of prescription, which Minister Chombo had raised to argue that the debt was no longer enforceable. He clarified that while prescription is a special defence that must be specifically pleaded, the payment of US$2 360 by Minister Chombo in January 2024 interrupted the running of the prescription period.
“The payment made by the appellant on January 25, 2024, had the effect of interrupting prescription,” Justice Uchena stated, effectively dismissing this aspect of Minister Chombo’s defence.
However, the Supreme Court emphasised that the High Court was correct in declining to entertain Minister Chombo’s prescription defence because it had not been properly pleaded.
“Prescription is, by its very nature, a special defence which must be specifically and distinctly pleaded as a special plea,” Justice Uchena explained, citing legal precedents that require such defences to be raised formally and at the appropriate stage of proceedings.
The legal fees dispute arose from Minister Chombo’s divorce case, which Ms Mtetwa described as complex, toxic and demanding.
Mtetwa testified that her firm had gone to great lengths to protect Minister Chombo’s interests, including retrieving files from her previous lawyer and handling multiple court applications. She argued that the US$100 000 fee was justified given the scope of the work and the value of the estate involved in the divorce.
Ms Mtetwa also testified that Minister Chombo had acknowledged the debt in 2014 and made repeated promises to settle it, including attempts to pay with immovable properties.
Minister Chombo, however, contested the fees, describing them as exorbitant and arguing that the acknowledgment of debt was unfairly obtained. She claimed that her US$2 360 payment in 2024 was made in good faith to open negotiations for a reduced fee, not as an acknowledgment of the entire amount.
She also argued that SI 33/19 entitled her to settle the debt inZimbabwean dollars at a 1:1 rate, effectively reducing her liability to ZWL$100 000.
The Supreme Court found that the High Court’s failure to address the S.I. 33/19 issue constituted a misdirection.
Justice Uchena remarked, “The court a quo erred in failing to take into consideration a point of law which had been covered in evidence and submissions before it. The case is remitted to the Court a quo before the same judge for determination of the issue of currency in which the debt is to be paid.”
The Supreme Court also noted that Minister Chombo’s acknowledgment of debt did not include any condition for negotiating a reduced fee, as her legal team had suggested.
“There was no such condition, and $100 000 was the amount agreed between the parties as legal fees,” Justice Uchena clarified.
While the Supreme Court’s decision provides a temporary reprieve for Minister Chombo, the matter is far from over. The High Court will now have to determine whether the debt should be settled in US dollars or Zimbabwean dollars under S.I. 33/19.
The post Chombo secures Supreme Court victory appeared first on Zimbabwe Situation.