Zimbabwe Cricket has approached the High Court seeking an order to compel the Harare Sports Club to pay over $90 000 for loss of revenue, accusing the club of breaching a lease agreement by double leasing its property to the Tobacco Industry Cricket Supporters Association.
BY CHARLES LAITON
According to the court papers, Zimbabwe Cricket and the Harare Sports Club, cited as the second defendant in the litigation, entered into a 24-year lease agreement in 1999, which lease still subsists and is set to expire on March 31, 2024.
“The material terms of the lease were, among others, that the plaintiff (Zimbabwe Cricket) would lease an area generally known as the designated area, as is morefully described in the agreement that the plaintiff would pay the rentals agreed from time to time,” Zimbabwe Cricket said in its declaration.
The cricket body further said in breach of the parties’ agreement, the Harare Sports Club entered into another lease agreement with the Tobacco Industry Cricket Supporters Association, cited as the first defendant in the litigation, on August 1, 2015.
“In terms of that lease, the first defendant (Tobacco Industry Cricket Supporters Association) is paying a rental of $2 500 per month. The plaintiff has, thus, been prejudiced of the rentals levied on that portion of the property amounting to $90 000, calculated from December 2015 to December 2018 when prescription is taken into account,” Zimbabwe Cricket said.
“The plaintiff is entitled to recover the rentals generated by the area forming part of its lease agreement with the second defendant. The plaintiff is further entitled holding over to damages for the period the first defendant continues in occupation of the property until the occupation is regularised or it vacates the property.
“Wherefore, plaintiff’s claims against the defendants jointly and severally, with one paying the other to be absolved, is for payment of the sum of $90 000, payment of the sum of $83 per day from January 1, 2019 in the event that the first defendant continues in occupation until the day it regularised its occupation with the plaintiff or leaves the leased premises, whichever occurs first plus costs of suit on a legal practitioner scale.”
Both defendants are yet to respond to the litigation and the matter is pending.