Eyeluth Properties (Pvt) Ltd v Harvey (HC 14348 of 2012) [2015] ZWHHC 408 (28 April 2015)

Eyeluth Properties (Pvt) Ltd v Harvey (HC 14348 of 2012) [2015] ZWHHC 408 (28 April 2015)

The defendant was under no obligation to invest the money in Tetrad Asset Management, but was obliged to invest the trust funds in a secure interest bearing account. The plaintiff failed to provide evidence of the interest rates that would have been earned in a bank, and thus failed to prove the quantum of damages. Without such evidence, the court cannot award damages.

Citation
[2015] ZWHHC 408
Parties
Plaintiff: Eyeluth Properties (Pvt) Ltd; Defendant: Roy Harvey
Court
Harare High Court
Jurisdiction
Zimbabwe
Judgment Date
28 April 2015
Case Number
HC 14348 of 2012
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Final Judgment
Outcome
plaintiff’s claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Damages, Trust Account, Conveyancing, Authority of Agent, Quantification of Damages
Source Language
English
Civil Law Property Law Trust Law Damages Trust Account Conveyancing Authority of Agent Quantification of Damages

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Eyeluth Properties (Pvt) Ltd

Plaintiff

Roy Harvey

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Mr R. J Lovatt was the plaintiff’s duly authorised representative
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff’s representative instructed the defendant to invest the sum of $127,237.50 into an interest bearing account
  3. 3 Whether the instruction to invest was to unlawfully evade tax

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant was under no obligation to invest the money in Tetrad Asset Management, but was obliged to invest the trust funds in a secure interest bearing account. The plaintiff failed to provide evidence of the interest rates that would have been earned in a bank, and thus failed to prove the quantum of damages. Without such evidence, the court cannot award damages.

Court Disposition

plaintiff’s claim dismissed

Orders

  • plaintiff’s claim is dismissed with no order as to costs