KINGDOM Bank has filed an application at the High Court seeking to recover over $1 million allegedly owed by a group of companies that has since failed to repay the loan.
Report by Charles Laiton
The claim has since been dismissed by the alleged guarantors who have distanced themselves from the principal debtor.
The bank cited Stir Crazy Group of Companies, alongside its alleged guarantors, Theright Investment, Opium Investment, Ronald John Coumbis and Phillipa Ann Coumbis, as first to fifth respondents respectively.
In its claim, Kingdom Bank has demanded a total of $1 003 299 including interest from the five defendants with one paying the other to be absolved.
The bank claims on six different occasions, between January and May 2010, it entered into various loan agreements with Stir Crazy Group of Companies, for which the other defendants signed as guarantors.
According to the court papers under case number HC589/13, Theright Investment and Opium Investment deny owing the bank any money challenging the existence of the alleged principal debtor, Stir Crazy Group of Companies.
In their combined defendant’s plea, Theright Investment and Opium Investment said: “The second and third defendants each deny knowledge or existence of the first defendant whose existence is denied, or any dealings therewith or parties purporting to act on behalf thereof.
- Chamisa under fire over US$120K donation
- Mavhunga puts DeMbare into Chibuku quarterfinals
- Pension funds bet on Cabora Bassa oilfields
- Councils defy govt fire tender directive
Keep Reading
“The second and third defendants deny executing any unlimited guarantor in favour of the plaintiff for debts owed by first defendant whether as alleged or at all,” the two firms said.
In her defence, Ann Coumbis said she did not recall precisely when and where she executed and does not admit she executed a document called “unlimited guarantee by an individual”.
“Facilities and loans as alleged by plaintiff are irresponsible and reckless in the circumstances and in breach of sound and to the unfair prejudice of any guarantor of such claimed obligation.
Accordingly, such claimed obligations are unenforceable against any surety or guarantor thereof, including fifth defendant,” Coumbis said.
The matter is yet to be heard.
