A legal dispute in which the Kaizen Family Trust and Rodney Dangarembizi were counterclaiming US$432 000 and US$868 000 respectively has been thrown out by the High court.
Rodney Dangarembizi is an alleged G40 member who made headlines in 2017 after it emerged that he authored a speech in which Kudzai Chipanga then Zanu PF youth leader insulted vice president, Constantino Chiwenga.
High Court judge Justice Slyvia Chirau Mugomba dismissed the case brought by the Kaizen Family which was demanding U$432 000 from the Rodney Dangarembizi Family Trust ruling that it was not the court's duty to rewrite contracts between parties in business before ordering each party to settle own costs.
At the center of the dispute is a piece of land in Rolf Valley Township.
Parties entered into a written agreement in which Kaizen was to buy the land from the Rodney Dangarembizi Family Trust.
The purchase price was set at US$2, 5 million.
In breach, Kaizen Family failed to pay the purchase price as agreed.
On the 21st of August 2021, the parties entered into a further agreement in which a new date for the payment of the purchase price was extended by a period of 45 days from the 10th of August 2021.
Kaizen Family again failed to pay the purchase price in accordance with the extension of the period and Dangarembizi cancelled the agreement.
At the time of termination, the Kaizen Family had paid US$432 000.
Sign up for free AllAfrica Newsletters
Get the latest in African news delivered straight to your inbox
Dangarembizi subsequently sold the property to a third party, for US$1, 2 million.
The Kaizen family's claim was that it ought to be refunded the sum of US$432 000 that it paid.
On the other hand, Dangarembizi Trust in its counterclaim said it ought to be paid US$868 000 being damages arising from the plaintiff's breach.
The judge said in her view, Kaizen Family clearly admitted that it breached the contract by failing to pay the purchase price. And was now seeking a refund of the money paid towards the purchase price.
"I agree with the defendant that it is not the duty of the court to re-write contracts for the parties. In casu, the plaintiff was in breach and the defendant secured another buyer and has since transferred the property," said the judge in dismissing the claim.
"To address issues number one and two as per the statement of agreed facts, the plaintiff in my view is not entitled to a refund of $432 000."
She said this issue can only be scrutinised after Dangarembizi Trust has quantified its loss if any.
The judge also said on the other hand Dangarembizi Trust simply took mathematical figures and turned them into a claim for damages.
"What the parties ought to have done was to exchange notes on the losses, if any incurred, as the starting point. The defendant's claim is nothing more than payback against the plaintiff."
She ruled, "In view of the above it follows that both claims by the plaintiff and the defendant have no merit.
"They ought to be dismissed."
