In the application, Mohadi was seeking payment from Tichaona Mushipe and Oscar Chiromo after he opted out of the business agreement that they entered into in November 2016. He accused the two of having misappropriated funds to his prejudice.
The two told the court that Mohadi was lying.
“In any event, the allegations are false and would have to be led as evidence at trial, where defendants will have the opportunity to cross-examine plaintiff on the same. In the premises, the defendant prays that the exception be upheld with costs, and that the plaintiff’s claim be dismissed,” the two said.
In his papers, Mohadi claimed to have pulled out of the partnership in August 2018, following alleged misuse of funds by Mushipe and Chiromo, which he claimed prejudiced him of US$107 135.
“After the collapse of the partnership, the licence holder and owner Malindi Storage and Logistics (Private) Limited recalled its trading licence as the partnership was using the said company’s trading licence,” Mohadi said.
The vice president added that through a court order, the company then took its assets and moved its offices to its site which was different from the premises the partners were using.
“On the 15th day of April 2019, the parties entered into a deed of disengagement. The parties then agreed to engage an auditor so that the parties could see what they were worth and what their obligations were to each other.
“After the auditor finished his work, the defendants then refused to accept the audit report for no apparent reasons. The parties have been stuck since then.
“The defendants clearly breached the partnership contract and the deed of disengagement contract by failing to complete their obligations in terms of the said deed,” Mohadi said.
Mushipe and Chiromo, however, argued that there was no basis for Mohadi to mention Malindi Storage and Logistics, which was not even party to the court proceedings.
“In particular, plaintiff pleaded allegations of Malindi Storage and Logistics (Private) Limited recalling its trading licence, taking assets and moving offices.
“Such allegations ought to have been excluded from the declaration, being the evidence upon which matters are to be proved at trial.
“Further, the said company is not a party in the matter, and the relevance of its mention has not been established,” the court was told.The matter is still pending before the High Court.
