Court clears Pam Golding in property dispute

Published: 7 hours ago

The High Court has dismissed a lawsuit against real estate firm Pam Golding Properties, ruling that the company fulfilled its obligations under an agency agreement in a disputed property sale.

Justice Faith Mushure found that allegations by Mr Zviko Murahwi of breach of contract were without merit, and his claim for US$168 127.02 "could not stand."

The case stemmed from the 2018 sale of Stand 373 Athlone Township, which Murahwi and his wife sold for US$190 000 to raise funds for their disabled child's medical care. He accused Pam Golding of failing to remit the proceeds to his South African bank account, alleging negligence, withholding of funds, and failure to cancel the transaction when currency reforms complicated transfers.

Pam Golding denied wrongdoing, insisting it discharged its duty by transferring the money to conveyancers, IEG Musimbe and Partners, on Murahwi's own instructions. The firm argued that delays arose from regulatory hurdles and liquidity shortages.

Justice Mushure upheld this position, noting that once Murahwi directed the transfer to the conveyancers, Pam Golding's mandate ended.

"The defendant cannot be expected to comply with instructions it no longer holds. The plaintiff's instruction to the conveyancers superseded the mandate given to the defendant," she ruled.

The court heard that the law firm confirmed holding the funds in trust and advised Murahwi to engage the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe (RBZ) to facilitate transfer, but he failed to do so.

Justice Mushure also rejected Murahwi's claim that Pam Golding should have cancelled the sale, stressing that the company, as an agent, had no authority to terminate or enforce a contract between buyer and seller.

Murahwi's credibility came under scrutiny, with the court pointing to inconsistencies in his testimony and attempts to mislead on key issues such as the agency agreement's scope and the appointment of conveyancers.

"The plaintiff's lack of candour is damaging to his case. A litigant who withholds or distorts material facts cannot expect the court's protection," Justice Mushure said.

In addition to dismissing the claim, the judge ordered Murahwi to pay Pam Golding's legal costs on a punitive scale, criticising his persistence in suing despite knowing the funds were with the conveyancers and ignoring advice to approach the RBZ.

"Perhaps, had the plaintiff heeded advice to follow up with the RBZ, a stitch in time would have saved nine," she observed.
- The Herald

Tags: Court,