THE High Court has dismissed an appeal by businessman Marlon Chikuni and two fuel companies, Puroil (Pvt) Ltd and Gama Energies (Pvt) Ltd, ordering them to repay US$19 500 to Mahuni Gidiri Legal Practitioners lost in a botched fuel import deal.
Justices Bongani Ndlovu and Joseph Chilimbe ruled that the appellants had been “unjustly enriched” after recovering both their US$360 000 deposit and part of the fuel consignment from a failed 2022 supply contract, while still retaining an extra US$19 500 advanced by the law firm.
“It is a no brainier that the US$19 500 was an overpayment and the matter rests there,” Justice Ndlovu said.
“What matters is whether they retained funds not due to them. The appellants unjustifiably benefited. The law forbids that.”
The dispute started in 2022 after a deal in which Puroil, represented by Chikuni, paid US$400 000 through Mahuni Gidiri Legal Practitioners to R-Powered Solutions, a South African supplier, for 400 000 litres of fuel.
Only 40 000 litres were delivered, leaving a 360 000 litres shortfall.
The fuel was being supplied at US$1 per litre.
During the impasse, the law firm advanced US$19 500 to help the appellants overcome cash flow challenges while the balance of US$360 000 was later recovered through litigation against R-Powered Solutions.
- Fresh land invasions hit Whitecliff
- Pomona cash row escalates
- Border Timbers targets European markets
- SA name strong A side for Zim tour
Keep Reading
But when the law firm demanded repayment of the US$19 500, the appellants refused, sparking the legal battle.
The magistrates’ court initially ruled in favour of the law firm, finding that Chikuni and his companies had no right to retain the money.
An appeal was brought to the High Court to overturn that ruling.
The appellants argued that the magistrates’ court erred by introducing the principle of unjust enrichment, which they said had not been pleaded.
They also claimed that funds deposited in the law firm’s trust account remained their property until fuel delivery was completed.
The High Court judges disagreed saying there was clear evidence of unjust enrichment amounting to US$19 500 in the direction of the appellants.
Justice Ndlovu ruled that the appellants will benefit unjustly if they are allowed to keep the money.
The court further dismissed the argument that the law firm had no right to claim the money.
“The appellants’ argument that the money belongs to the respondent’s client is stillborn,” the judgment stated.
The High Court upheld the magistrates court ruling in its entirety, dismissing the appeal with costs.
“The appeal lacks merit and the lower court’s verdict is upheld,” Justice Ndlovu concluded, with Justice Chilimbe concurring.
Legal experts say the ruling underscores the courts’ willingness to invoke principles of unjust enrichment, even where not specifically pleaded, so long as evidence supports the claim.
