VICE-PRESIDENT, Constantino Chiwenga’s ex-wife, Jocelyn Chiwenga, has petitioned the court seeking rescission of a default judgment in a matter in which Tian Ze Tobacco Company (Pvt) Ltd, recently obtained a default judgement compelling her to pay it $99 000 for inputs supplied.
BY CHARLES LAITON
According to the court papers, Jocelyn was slapped with a default judgment on June 11, 2018 following a litigation filed by Tian Ze in February last year, accusing her of having failed to supply tobacco to the company for which she had obtained a $286 400 worth of farming inputs on credit.
In her affidavit Jocelyn pleaded with the court to overturn the granted judgment saying she was not in wilful default when the court made the determination but that there had been breakdown in communication between her lawyers and the firms’ lawyers.
“I arrived at the High Court and waited outside the court building for arrival of my legal representative, anticipating that the matter had been briefly stood down, as advised, as both parties had intentions to proceed with the trial,” she said.
“My legal practitioner arrived at 10:08am and as we were entering the court building we met representatives of the respondent (Tian Ze) company, heading out who then informed us default judgment had been obtained against me. I was shocked as I had been under the impression there had been dialogue between the lawyers in the case. I humbly submit that I was not in wilful default, there seems to have been a miscommunication regarding the brief standing down of the matter.”
According to the court papers, on April 23, 2013 the company and Jocelyn entered into a tobacco farming contract in terms of which the firm was to supply tobacco farming inputs valued at $286 400 for the 2013-2014 farming season.
Tian Ze said it, however, fulfilled the terms of the agreement and supplied Jocelyn with farming inputs of the requested value on different occasions during the 2013-2014 tobacco farming season.
However, in breach of the contract, Jocelyn is said to have failed to deliver the expected quantity of tobacco for sale to the firm and has thus accumulated a debt of $99 014 for the inputs she had already received.
But, Jocelyn said she had a bona fide defence to the claim.
“The respondent did not deliver the implement in question, as no delivery notes have been furnished as proof of supply of implements.
“In the absence of this confirmation, the respondent’s claim is unsupportive and will not succeed . . . I verily believe that the prospects of success in this regard are very high and that if the matter is heard my defence will be sustained and matter duly dismissed,” she said.
The matter is yet to be set down for hearing.