Bervic (Private) Limited v Gift Sango-Moyo

The plaintiff claimed provisional sentence for US$21,722.05 based on an acknowledgement of debt executed by the defendant on 4 December 2015. The acknowledgement of debt stated that Big Mugg Café, represented and owned by Gift Sango-Moyo, owed this amount in outstanding rents to Bervic (Pvt) Ltd, including interest at 22% per annum. The document contained language stating "I Gift Sango-Moyo accept the debt and agree to pay all outstanding amounts within the next seven days from today's date." The defendant signed the acknowledgement but did not insert the date below his signature, though the date "4th December 2015" appeared at the top of the document. The debt arose from rental arrears owed by Big Mugg Café to the plaintiff.

• Whether the plaintiff cited the correct defendant or should have sued Big Mugg Café instead of Gift Sango-Moyo personally
• Whether the defendant signed the acknowledgement of debt in his personal capacity or merely as a representative of Big Mugg Café
• Whether the acknowledgement of debt met the criteria for a valid acknowledgement of debt in terms of stating when the debt became due and payable
• Whether the absence of a date below the defendant's signature invalidated the acknowledgement of debt

1. The claim for provisional sentence was granted. 2. The defendant was ordered to pay the plaintiff US$21,722.05 together with interest at 22% per annum from 4 December 2015 to date of full and final payment. 3. The defendant was ordered to pay costs of suit.

Where an individual signs an acknowledgement of debt stating "I [name] accept the debt and agree to pay" without clearly indicating on the face of the document that they are signing as a representative or on behalf of a company, that individual assumes personal liability for the debt regardless of whether the underlying debt was originally owed by a company they own or represent. An acknowledgement of debt meets the requirement of stating when the debt becomes due and payable where the date appears on the document and the payment terms are specified (e.g., "within seven days from today's date"), even if the signatory fails to insert the date below their signature.

The court noted that even if no date had been inserted on the acknowledgement of debt at all, seven days would have long lapsed by the time the defendant filed his notice of opposition, making the point in limine without merit in any event. The court also observed that the defendant abandoned a third point in limine regarding lack of jurisdiction, as it was not addressed in the defendant's heads of argument.

This case clarifies important principles regarding personal liability under acknowledgements of debt in Zimbabwean law. It demonstrates that the specific wording used in an acknowledgement of debt is determinative of whether an individual assumes personal liability for a corporate debt. The case establishes that where a person states "I [name] accept the debt" without clearly indicating they are signing as a representative or on behalf of a company, they will be held personally liable. The judgment also addresses procedural requirements for acknowledgements of debt in provisional sentence applications, particularly regarding the determination of when a debt becomes due and payable.