×
NewsDay

AMH is an independent media house free from political ties or outside influence. We have four newspapers: The Zimbabwe Independent, a business weekly published every Friday, The Standard, a weekly published every Sunday, and Southern and NewsDay, our daily newspapers. Each has an online edition.

Parastatal sues Mupfumira over car hire

News
PUBLIC Service, Labour and Social Welfare minister Prisca Mupfumira has been dragged to the High Court by Easy Go (Pvt) Ltd over $132 000 owed by her ministry in car rentals.

PUBLIC Service, Labour and Social Welfare minister Prisca Mupfumira has been dragged to the High Court by Easy Go (Pvt) Ltd over $132 000 owed by her ministry in car rentals.

BY CHARLES LAITON

Easy Go, a subsidiary of the Transport ministry’s parastatal CMED (Pvt) Ltd issued its summons on May 18 this year citing Mupfumira in her official capacity.

“Plaintiff (Easy Go) hereby claims payment of the sum of $132 297,07, being the amount outstanding arising from the car hire services which were rendered to the defendant (Mupfumira) by the plaintiff,” the firm said.

“Interest thereon calculated at the prescribed rate from date of summons to date of payment and collection commission.”

Mupfumira has since responded to the litigation, saying she is ready with her defence.

In its declaration, Easy-Go (Pvt) Ltd said sometime between 2014 and 2015, it entered into an agreement with the Public Service, Labour and Social Welfare ministry, in terms of which the ministry hired vehicles for use by its officers from the firm.

The firm further said after the agreement was signed, it went ahead and fulfilled its obligations by providing the car hiring services to the ministry, but the latter allegedly reneged to play its part, prompting the firm to approach the court for recourse.

“Defendant breached the agreement by paying part of the amount, leaving a balance in the sum of $132 297,07. Defendant is liable to pay the plaintiff the total sum, being the amount outstanding arising from car hire services which were rendered to the defendant by the plaintiff,” the firm said.

“Sometime in March 2016, plaintiff, through its lawyers of record wrote, a letter of demand to the defendant which was never complied with. Defendant has refused and/or neglected to pay the whole amount despite demand.”