The defendant was an external insurance broker (agent) for the plaintiff insurance company for many years. The defendant was based in Bindura while the plaintiff's offices were in Harare. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant failed to remit USD$19,970.00 in outstanding insurance policy purchase amounts collected on its behalf, and failed to return insurance cover note books valued at USD$20,000.00. The plaintiff claimed the defendant had entered into a written contract of agency. The defendant testified that he entered into a verbal contract with Mr. Janhi, the plaintiff's then managing director, around 2004. The defendant stated that there were no formal procedures in place for book collection, payment of sales monies, or return of finished books. Various officers of the plaintiff (Janhi, Moyo, Zulu, Zungura) would collect cash and books directly from the defendant in Bindura, sometimes issuing receipts and sometimes not. The defendant claimed he surrendered all outstanding cover note books and cash to Zulu when he terminated his agreement. The plaintiff's witnesses testified about current formal procedures but could not produce the written contract or the audit report referenced.
The plaintiff's claim was dismissed with costs.
In civil proceedings, the plaintiff bears the burden of proving all essential elements of its claim on a balance of probabilities. Where a plaintiff has evidence available which would enable the court to properly assess the claim but fails to produce it, the court is not obliged to guess or make arbitrary calculations and is justified in dismissing the claim. A plaintiff must produce the best evidence upon which a proper assessment of loss could be made - it is not the task of the court to award damages based on confused, jumbled or inadequately proven figures. Hearsay evidence regarding the existence of a foundational written contract, without production of the contract itself and without cogent explanation for its absence, is insufficient to discharge the burden of proof. Where there are material discrepancies in the plaintiff's evidence and the defendant's version is more credible and probable, the court will prefer the defendant's evidence.
The court made observations about the insurance brokerage business, noting that success depends on powers of persuasion and involves an element of salesmanship. The court commented that the business of buying and selling insurance is 'tricky' and highly mobile. CHIGUMBA J noted that when new management took over after Janhi, Moyo and Zulu left, new procedures were likely put in place to close loopholes that had been exploited by the outgoing officers. The court observed that it would have assisted to see the audit report and the actual insurance cover note books, not merely schedules listing serial numbers. The court noted the difference between the tests for absolution from the instance at the close of the plaintiff's case (what might a reasonable court do - a lower standard) versus after the defendant has closed its case (what ought a reasonable court do - a higher standard based on balance of probabilities).
This case illustrates the strict application of the burden of proof requirements in civil cases in Zimbabwean law. It demonstrates that a plaintiff must produce the best available evidence to prove its case and cannot leave the court to guess at crucial elements such as the quantum of damages. The case emphasizes that hearsay evidence about foundational contractual documents is insufficient, and that credibility assessments of witnesses are crucial in determining the balance of probabilities. The judgment reinforces the principle that when a plaintiff has evidence available but fails to produce it (such as the written contract, audit report, and actual cover note books), the court is justified in dismissing the claim. It also highlights the importance of properly accounting for all contractual entitlements (such as commission) when calculating damages.