Kacee Electrical Contractors (Pvt) Ltd v Zimcn Investments (Pvt) Ltd

On 12 June 2017, the plaintiff and defendant entered into a contract for the plaintiff to install electricity infrastructure at defendant's mine premises. This was actually the second agreement, as an earlier agreement signed in January 2017 had failed when defendant did not pay the required deposit. The total project value was USD 93,326.00. The plaintiff completed the electrical installation works and informed the defendant by email on 28 September 2017. After various payments, a balance of USD 20,472.12 remained unpaid. ZETDC officials inspected the installations and subsequently energized the transformer in January 2018. However, after running for 17 hours, the transformer blew up. The defendant refused to pay the outstanding balance and counterclaimed USD 54,000.00 for operational expenses due to alleged delays and negligence in the transformer installation.

• Whether the defendant was liable to pay the plaintiff the sum of USD 20,472.12 for breach of contract
• Whether the plaintiff was negligent in the installation of the transformer that subsequently blew up
• Whether the defendant was entitled to damages for the blown transformer and operational losses
• Whether the plaintiff properly completed its contractual obligations

The court ordered: (a) The defendant to pay the plaintiff USD 20,472.12 being money due for breach of contract; (b) Interest at the prescribed rate calculated from date of judgment to date of payment in full; (c) The counterclaim was dismissed; (d) The defendant to pay costs of suit.

Where a contractor completes electrical installation work that is inspected and approved by the statutory electricity authority (ZETDC), and that authority subsequently energizes the installation, the contractor is not liable for damage resulting from the negligent energization by the authority. The contractor's obligations are fulfilled once the work is completed to a standard acceptable to the regulatory authority. Where equipment (such as a transformer) is supplied by the client rather than the contractor, and that equipment is separately inspected and approved by competent authorities before installation, the contractor bears no liability for subsequent failure of that equipment due to the negligence of the energizing authority.

The court noted favorably the honesty and impartiality of the defendant's expert witness, Engineer Mukasa, contrasting him with the defendant's first witness whom the court found less credible. The court observed that Mukasa "put the last nail in the defendant's case" by honestly admitting that fault lay with ZETDC rather than supporting his client's position. This demonstrates judicial appreciation for expert witnesses who maintain professional integrity over partisan advocacy. The court also made an observation regarding Chinese-built transformers, noting that the plaintiff had discouraged their use as unsuitable for local climatic conditions, though this was not determinative of liability.

This case establishes important principles regarding liability in electrical installation contracts in Zimbabwe, particularly concerning the allocation of responsibility between contractors and statutory authorities (ZESA/ZETDC) in the commissioning process. It clarifies that where a statutory authority inspects, approves, and energizes electrical installations, the contractor cannot be held liable for subsequent failures that result from the authority's negligence in the energization process. The case also demonstrates the court's willingness to rely on expert testimony, particularly when such testimony is impartial and undermines the case of the party calling the expert.