Rumtowers Security (Pvt) Ltd v Superbake Bakeries (Pvt) Ltd

The applicant, Rumtowers Security (Pvt) Ltd, provided security services to the respondent, Superbake Bakeries (Pvt) Ltd, under a written contract. The applicant claimed payment of US$3,000 for security services rendered during April, May and June 2009 at US$1,000 per month. The applicant also claimed a further US$3,000 in lieu of 3 months' notice of termination as required by Clause 11 of the security agreement, which the respondent failed to give when cancelling the contract. The respondent entered appearance and filed a plea raising two defences: (1) that it had been wrongly cited as Superbake Bakeries is not a registered company, and (2) that the claim for US$3,000 in lieu of notice was a claim for damages which could not be made by summary judgment.

• Whether a party can be sued in its business name or style even if not registered as a company
• Whether the respondent was properly cited in the name under which it conducted business
• Whether a claim for damages can be pursued by way of summary judgment application
• Whether the respondent had a bona fide defence to the applicant's claim

Summary judgment was granted in favor of the applicant. The respondent was ordered to pay the applicant the total sum of US$6,000 together with interest thereon at the rate of 5% per annum from 13 October 2009 to date of payment. The respondent was ordered to pay costs of suit on an attorney and client scale.

A party carrying on business in a particular name or style may be sued in that name or style as if it were the name of an association, even if not formally registered as a company, particularly where that party has entered into contracts and traded under that name. There is nothing in the Rules of Court that prevents a claim for damages from being pursued by way of summary judgment, provided the damages are easily ascertainable from the papers and the applicant can demonstrate there is no bona fide defence to the claim. Where a defence is presented in a manner that is needlessly bald, vague or sketchy, this constitutes material evidence that the defence lacks bona fides and summary judgment should be granted.

The court referenced the principle from Hales v Doverick Investments (Pvt) Ltd 1998 (2) ZLR 235 that if a defence is averred in a manner which appears in all material circumstances needlessly bald, vague or sketchy, that will constitute material for the court to consider in relation to the requirement of bona fides. This observation reinforced the court's assessment of the quality of defences raised in summary judgment applications.

This case provides important guidance on the procedural aspects of summary judgment applications in Zimbabwean law. It clarifies that: (1) parties may be sued in their business names or styles even if not formally registered as companies, provided they have conducted business under that name; (2) claims for damages, where easily ascertainable, can be pursued by way of summary judgment; and (3) defences that are bald, vague or sketchy will not constitute a bona fide defence sufficient to resist summary judgment. The case reinforces the principle that summary judgment is an appropriate remedy where a defence lacks substance and appears to be raised for dilatory purposes.