Back to top
Zalari has raised $2 million USD in a founding round led by Nyamaropa Technologies
Harare High Court

Logivate Incorporated (Private) Limited v Commissioner General of the Zimbabwe Republic Police (N.O.) and Minister of Home Affairs and Cultural Heritage (N.O.)

HH 278-23

Case Details

Court
Harare High Court
Date
8 May 2023
Citation
HH 278-23
Neutral Citation
[2023] ZWHH 278
Outcome
unknown
Case Type
Trial

Bench

Presiding
MUSITHU J
Full Bench
MUSITHU J
Areas of Law
Contract lawCommercial litigation
Keywords
Breach of contractDamagesQuantum of damagesGovernment procurementTraffic enforcement equipment
Tags
Breach of contractDamagesGovernment contractProcurement
legislation
Statutes Cited
  • Finance Act (No.2) Act, No.7 of 2019
  • Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe Act
  • Prescription Act
  • State Liabilities Act
ai analysis
Case Summary

Key Issues

  • {"issue_text":"What is the quantum of damages due to plaintiff for defendant's breach of contract?","issue_type":"mixed","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Contract value, breach by non-payment, plaintiff's expected profits"}
  • {"issue_text":"Whether calibration income claim is sustainable given contractual terms","issue_type":"law","dispositive":"no","related_facts":"Clause 3.0 undertaking to provide calibration services"}
  • {"issue_text":"Whether claim for consumables income is supported by contract","issue_type":"law","dispositive":"no","related_facts":"Absence of consumables supply obligation in contract"}
  • {"issue_text":"Whether damages should be paid in USD or RTGS/ZWL","issue_type":"law","dispositive":"no","related_facts":"Contract denominated in USD, statutory instruments on currency conversion"}
This summary was generated by AI. Use Zalari to read the full judgment.
background
Facts of the Case

Background

The plaintiff, a supplier of traffic safety equipment, entered into a contract with the Zimbabwe Republic Police in July 2012 for the supply of traffic law enforcement equipment worth USD 1,956,035. Despite the plaintiff fulfilling preliminary obligations including site visits and delivery of sample equipment, the defendants failed to make the required 60% advance payment and later claimed financial constraints and existence of an alternative government partnership arrangement. The plaintiff sued for damages for breach of contract.
Read the full judgment, get AI analysis, and find related cases
Open in Zalari →