Mandiwanzira sued over Rainbow Airline joint venture


A HARARE businessman is demanding over $350 000 from Information Communication Technology minister Supa Mandiwanzira for allegedly breaching a joint venture agreement for the setting-up of Rainbow Airlines.


Frank Humbe, alongside his firm, Day Investments (Pvt) Ltd, issued summons against Mandizvidza’s company, AB Communications (Pvt) Ltd, together with Rainbow Airlines (Pvt) Ltd and the matter is yet to be set down for a pre-trial conference.

In his declaration, Humbe said some years back, he entered into an agreement with Mandiwanzira with a view to operate Rainbow Airlines.

He alleged when the move failed, he then concluded a sale agreement in respect of his 700 shares in Rainbow Airlines constituting 70% of the airline’s issued share capital.

“The material terms of the agreement were that the purchase price of the shares of $355 419,43 would be paid in full to the second plaintiff (Day Investments). Second plaintiff was recognised as the investment vehicle through which first plaintiff (Humbe) concluded the transaction and upon payment in full, the shares would be transferred from first plaintiff to first defendant (AB Communications),” Humbe said.

“In breach of the agreement between the parties, first defendant failed to make the payments agreed and the agreement between the parties was on February 12, 2017 cancelled by plaintiff.”

Humbe further said in subsequent discussions, Mandiwanzira’s firm made a compromise offer for the same shares, offering to make monthly payments of $10 000 until the total $355 419 was fully extinguished.

“In breach of the compromise agreement, first defendant has failed, refused and/or neglected to either pay the agreed instalments or liquidate the sum in full . . . The first defendant has on the basis of the agreement whose terms it has not complied with taken its position in second defendant and is now solely running that entity,” Humbe said.

In its plea, however, AB Communications dismissed Humbe’s assertions, challenging him to prove the same.

“The defendants aver that the parties were in ‘without prejudice’ discussions concerning the sale agreement. The defendants deny having breached any terms of payment as alleged by the plaintiff,” the company said.

“The defendants further aver that the parties were and still are to reach consensus on the terms of payment as discussions are underway and have not yet yielded any binding terms. Plaintiffs are, therefore, put to the strictest proof of the alleged binding compromise.”