Time Bank of Zimbabwe Limited v Jeffrey Paradzai Makaya

Time Bank issued summons against Makaya claiming $42,572,183.01 in respect of an overdraft facility. Makaya had been a customer since November 1998. In May 2000, banking facilities were advanced to Makaya as working capital totaling $29,936,371.00, to be repaid over 3 years by annual instalments of $9,978,791.00. The loan accrued interest at 11.5% above the bank's lending rate. As security, Makaya passed a mortgage bond over his farm in Mazoe in September 2000. Time Bank claimed Makaya drew down $23,159,653.63, with interest of $19,990,808.38 and sundry charges of $108,823.00, less deposits of $518,672.25. In August 2001, Makaya wrote to Time Bank acknowledging a debt and making arrangements to pay $18 million. Time Bank then applied for summary judgment.

• Whether the applicant was entitled to summary judgment for the full amount claimed
• Whether the respondent had raised a bona fide defence showing a triable issue
• Whether there were material disputes of fact that would prevent granting of summary judgment
• What amount, if any, should summary judgment be granted for in circumstances where the defendant admits partial liability

Summary judgment granted to the applicant for $18,000,000.00 with interest at 41.5% per annum from 31 July 2001 to date of payment, with interest to be capitalized monthly on a daily debit balance. The respondent was ordered to pay the costs of the application.

In summary judgment applications, where a defendant admits owing a specific amount but disputes the full claim, and where the applicant's evidence in support of the amount claimed beyond the admission is insufficient (such as schedules without proper explanation), summary judgment will only be granted for the admitted amount. A defendant resisting summary judgment need only establish that there is a reasonable possibility of injustice if summary judgment is granted, or show a triable issue or plausible defence. The mere acceptance of a loan facility does not conclusively establish that the full facility amount was actually advanced and drawn down.

The court observed that the founding affidavit should have expanded on the various entries shown in the schedule of debts. The court noted that Makaya's defence alleged that Time Bank had failed to fulfill promises and assurances about assistance for his farming operations, resulting in crop failure, but this did not affect the admitted debt of $18 million. The court also noted that CSC Bills had been ceded to Makaya but due to difficulties, the cession was reversed and all related transactions were deleted from his account, with Time Bank only seeking payment of the working capital component advanced directly to Makaya.

This judgment is significant as a Zimbabwean case illustrating the principles applicable to summary judgment applications in banking disputes. It demonstrates that even in summary judgment proceedings where a defendant has made admissions, the court will carefully scrutinize the evidence supporting claims beyond admitted amounts. The case reinforces that the threshold for resisting summary judgment is relatively low - a defendant need only show a reasonable possibility of injustice or a triable issue. It also establishes that where a defendant admits part of a claim but the full claim lacks sufficient supporting evidence, summary judgment may be granted only for the admitted portion.