Ronald Bakari v Total Zimbabwe (Private) Limited

Key Issues

• {"issue_text":"Whether the appellant bound himself as surety for SM Tyres when he signed the surety agreement?","issue_type":"mixed","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Appellant signed surety document but claims it was for Limpopo Investments"}
• {"issue_text":"Whether the court a quo erred in holding that the onus lay on the appellant to prove that he had signed for Limpopo Investments and not SM Tyres?","issue_type":"law","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Legal burden of proof in suretyship disputes"}
• {"issue_text":"Whether the respondent's single witness was credible?","issue_type":"fact","dispositive":"no","related_facts":"Esther Verenga's testimony about surety agreement"}
• {"issue_text":"Whether judgment entered against the principal debtor novated the appellant's liability as surety?","issue_type":"law","dispositive":"no","related_facts":"Judgment obtained against SM Tyres in HH245/12"}
• {"issue_text":"Whether the court a quo erred by not granting absolution from the instance at the close of plaintiff's case?","issue_type":"procedural","dispositive":"no","related_facts":"Respondent's evidence at close of case"}

Background