Li Ping v Deacon (HC 5994 of 2015; HH 127 of 2017) [2017] ZWHHC 127 (1 March 2017)

Li Ping v Deacon (HC 5994 of 2015; HH 127 of 2017) [2017] ZWHHC 127 (1 March 2017)

The plaintiff, not being a registered money lender, failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of section 14(1) of the Money Lending and Interest Rates Act by not obtaining a document signed by the borrower at the time of the loan setting out all essential terms. Consequently, the plaintiff cannot recover interest above the prescribed statutory rate.

Citation
[2017] ZWHHC 127
Parties
Plaintiff: Wang Li Ping; Defendant: Barry Deacon
Court
Harare High Court
Jurisdiction
Zimbabwe
Judgment Date
1 March 2017
Case Number
HC 5994 of 2015 ; HH 127 of 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Judgment on Stated Case
Outcome
Plaintiff's claim to charge 4% per month interest dismissed; only prescribed rate of interest applies.
Legal Topics
Money Lending, Interest Rates, Statutory Compliance, Loan Agreements
Source Language
English
Contract Law Banking and Finance Money Lending Interest Rates Statutory Compliance Loan Agreements

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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Wang Li Ping

Plaintiff

Barry Deacon

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Judgment on Stated Case

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a lender who is not a registered money lender and who enters into an oral agreement for the advance of money is legally entitled to charge interest at a rate of 4% per month
  2. 2 If not, what rate of interest is the lender entitled to claim

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff, not being a registered money lender, failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of section 14(1) of the Money Lending and Interest Rates Act by not obtaining a document signed by the borrower at the time of the loan setting out all essential terms. Consequently, the plaintiff cannot recover interest above the prescribed statutory rate.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claim to charge 4% per month interest dismissed; only prescribed rate of interest applies.

Orders

  • The rate of interest applicable to the loan advanced to the defendant is the prescribed rate of interest.
  • The plaintiff is to pay the defendant’s costs.