$2 250 debt haunts MP

Source: $2 250 debt haunts MP | The Herald June 21, 2017

Sheillah Mapani Herald Reporter
Chegutu West legislator Mr Dexter Nduna has been arraigned before a Harare Civil Court by a man he owes $2 250, who is now seeking a garnishee order to be granted in his favour.

The Harare man, who is only identified as L. T. Nhari, alleged that he rendered unspecified professional services to Mr Nduna, which he failed to pay for.

The matter was heard before magistrate Mr Brighton Pabwe who deferred the hearing to a later date. It is alleged that sometime in March 2015, Mr Nhari rendered Mr Nduna, at his special instance and request, unspecified professional services.

He raised an invoice for $2 250 for the services rendered and submitted the same to Mr Nduna for payment. Notwithstanding repeated demands for payment, Mr Nduna failed to make meet his obligations.

Mr Nhari further told the court that on February 2 this year, a warrant of execution against movable property was issued against Mr Nduna.

He, therefore, appealed for a garnishee order claiming that the legislator had shown that he was able to pay the debt but intentionally does not want to make the payment.

Mr Nhari stated that Mr Nduna earned $2 209,11 per month and requested a substantial amount of $1 225 to be garnished against him for two months to clear the debt.

In defence, Mr Nduna denies owing Mr Nhari the amount he claims but only knew of $1 500.

He added that Mr Nhari issued summons for the sum of $2 250 contrary and in breach of the agreement, therefore he appealed for the court to dismiss the claim with costs.

COMMENTS

WORDPRESS: 1
  • comment-avatar

    Haaa “unspecified service”??? My take is: what does Chihuri (Police Com. Gen.) think when 2 men take each other to court claiming to have exchanged some services of sorts which they are not at ease to reveal to the courts. Is this not worrying in a world where people are murdered (for ritual and political reasons), poisoned, etc.? I think, while it may not be within the courts’ purview to insist on knowing the nature of so-called “unspecified service” police should take keen interest in this kind of thing.