Zanu PF Mashonaland Central provincial chairperson Dickson Mafios has been taken to court by CBZ Bank over a $472 000 debt.
BY CHARLES LAITON
The summons against Mafios were issued sometime last September under case number HC8571/15 after he allegedly refused to pay back a loan he acquired from the bank in October 2010.
However, Mafios has since dismissed the bank’s claims, alleging the latter failed to meet its obligations in terms as it failed to extend the $192 876 loan as per the parties’ agreement.
According to the bank, during the period in question, it entered into a written agreement with Mafios and extended a $192 876 credit facility to him.
As security for the credit facility, it is alleged that Mafios passed two notarial general covering bonds in favour of the bank securing the sum of $135 000 and $64 000 respectively.
“The facility extended to the defendant [Mafios] consisted of a summer cropping overdraft in the sum of $60 000 and a carry-over loan in the sum of $192 876,” the bank said.
- 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 bank further said in terms of clause 9 of the parties’ agreement, the credit facilities expired on September 30, 2011, when Mafios ought to have paid the debt plus interest and all other charges due under the facility.
“The defendant exceeded the withdrawal limit under the credit facilities, withdrawing a capital sum of $308 780,32,” the bank said.
“In breach of the parties’ agreement, defendant failed to repay the debt on the expiry date and the balance outstanding as at July 31, 2015 stood at $472 484,26.”
Mafios admitted he entered into an agreement with the bank, but accused the financial institution of failing to meet its obligations.
“The plaintiff (CBZ Bank) breached the agreement, as it failed to extend the money to the defendant. The two notarial bonds were passed in favour of the plaintiff arising out of two different loans, which had been advanced to the defendant prior to June 2010 and December 2009. The loans have been fully paid back to the plaintiff by the defendant,” he said.
“The carry-over loan was supposed to be $132 876. The plaintiff did not discharge its obligations under the agreement. Plaintiff did not extend the agreed amount to the defendant and cannot claim what it did not advance to the defendant. The agreement was automatically cancelled when plaintiff failed to discharge of its obligations.”
The matter is yet to be set down for hearing.
