JurisdictionSecurity for costsStatutory Instrument 33 of 2019Foreign companyPeregrine plaintiff
Tags
Contractual disputeInternational tradeCurrency conversionSecurity for costs
legislation
Statutes Cited
Reserve Bank Act
Companies and Other Business Entities Act
ai analysis
Case Summary
Key Issues
{"issue_text":"Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to deal with the matter in view of Clause viii of the General Terms of Sales and Delivery applicable","issue_type":"procedural","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Contract between German plaintiff and Zimbabwean defendant"}
{"issue_text":"If the court has jurisdiction, whether the plaintiff's claim could be adjudicated on in the absence of a payment of security for the defendant's costs by the plaintiff","issue_type":"procedural","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Plaintiff is a foreign company (peregrine)"}
This summary was generated by AI. Use Zalari to read the full judgment.
background
Facts of the Case
Background
A German company (plaintiff) sold seven buses to a Zimbabwean company (defendant) in 2014. The defendant failed to pay the purchase price of US$589,002.96. After Zimbabwe introduced Statutory Instrument 33 of 2019 mandating 1:1 conversion rate between USD and RTGS dollars for pre-2019 contractual liabilities, the defendant deposited ZWL$673,146.24 which was converted to US$6,370.36.
Read the full judgment, get AI analysis, and find related cases