Time Bank of Zimbabwe Limited v Culroy Farm (Private) Limited and Others

The applicant bank claimed $54,463,957.85 from the respondents arising from a banking facility provided to support the respondents' three different farming operations (Dream Orchard, Happy Planters Number 1 and Happy Planters Number 2). Prior to dealing with the applicant bank, the respondents had a similar facility with United Merchant Bank Limited (which went into liquidation), involving approximately $20 million. The applicant bank intended to take over this facility, but nothing was concluded and the claim excluded any liability towards United Merchant Bank Limited. The claim was supported by an acknowledgement of debt signed by the first and second respondents, guarantee documents signed by the second and third respondents guaranteeing payment of all monies payable by the first respondent, and detailed schedules showing month-by-month analysis of capital drawings, interest, bank charges and deposits for the three accounts between November 1998 and December 2000.

• Whether the applicant was entitled to summary judgment against the respondents
• Whether the respondents raised a bona fide defence or merely sought to delay proceedings
• Whether the respondents' opposition, based on unsubstantiated claims that they were owed money, constituted a triable issue
• Whether the defence raised a prima facie case sufficient to defeat summary judgment

1. The application for Summary Judgment was granted. 2. The Respondents were ordered to pay the Applicant $54,463,957.85 together with interest at the prescribed rate of 30% per annum from the date of the order to the date of payment. 3. The respondents' liability was declared joint and several, the one paying the others to be absolved. 4. Costs of the application and main action were awarded against the respondents, jointly and severally.

In summary judgment applications, a defendant must provide some documentary or evidential foundation to support their defence in order to demonstrate a triable issue. While the threshold is low (requiring only a prima facie defence showing a mere possibility of success, a plausible case, or a reasonable possibility that an injustice may be done), bold allegations and unsubstantiated figures without any supporting documentation are insufficient to defeat summary judgment. Where a defendant provides no documents to support counter-claims and the authenticity of the plaintiff's supporting documents is not challenged, the court is entitled to conclude that the defence is not bona fide and has been raised solely for purposes of delay, warranting the grant of summary judgment.

The court emphasized that when figures are provided in opposing affidavits, they should make sense and have a basis so that the court is in a better position to decide whether to refuse summary judgment. The court discouraged the practice of making bold allegations and providing unsubstantiated figures in summary judgment applications. The court also noted with concern that the respondents had provided no evidence of any demand, correspondence or communication to the applicant regarding their claim that they were owed money, despite making such a claim in their opposing papers.

This case demonstrates the strict requirements for defending against summary judgment applications in Zimbabwe. It emphasizes that defendants must provide documentary evidence or substantiated facts to demonstrate a triable issue, and that bold, unsubstantiated allegations and figures are insufficient to defeat summary judgment. The case reinforces that courts will grant summary judgment where defences appear to be raised solely for dilatory purposes without any bona fide basis. It illustrates the application of established principles regarding the threshold for resisting summary judgment, namely that while the bar is relatively low (mere possibility of success, plausible case, or triable issue), there must still be some evidential foundation for the defence.