Two architectural firms have petitioned the High Court seeking an order to compel the Zimbabwe Revenue Authority (Zimra) to pay $575 210 for services rendered during the construction of the Forbes Border Post in Mutare in 2005.
BY CHARLES LAITON
Through their lawyers, Gill Godlonton and Gerrans, Arch Design and Marsden Consultant Africa (MCA) issued summons against the revenue collector on September 25 and the latter is yet to respond to the litigation.
The two firms are represented by Christopher Madavo and Innocent Dzinotyiweyi, respectively.
According to the duo’s combined declaration, Madawo said his firm was claiming $374 797 while Dzinotyiweyi is claiming $200 412.
According to Madawo and Dzinotyiweyi, sometime in February 2005, Zimra commissioned their firms as professional consultants to provide architectural and quantity surveying services, respectively, for the Forbes Border Post project.
The duo said between February 2005 and September 2005, their firms provided architectural and quantity surveying services in the design of the Forbes Border Post office, commercial office, a residential area and related amenities, which were collectively referred to as the Zimra Forbes Border Post project.
“In terms of the agreement between the parties, the first and second plaintiff would render services…and defendant would pay for same within 30 days of an invoice being delivered to it,” Madawo said in his declaration.
“…The final drawings were delivered to the defendant on September 25, 2015 together with first plaintiff’s invoice for the payment of $374 797 and the payment of the invoice was due within 30 days of delivery to defendant.
“Notwithstanding demand, the defendant has failed, refused and or neglected to pay the first plaintiff for professional service rendered and the full amount as per invoice remains outstanding to date.”
In his declaration, Dzinotyiweyi also said his claim arises out of professional quantity surveying services rendered to Zimra in preparation of bills of quantity and other related quantity surveying services for the tender sums and project costs.
“The final bills of quantity, project costs and tender sums were delivered to the defendant on September 25, 2015 together with second plaintiff’s invoice for the payment of $200 412, and the payment of the invoice was due within 30 days of delivery to defendant,” Dzinotyiweyi said, adding notwithstanding demand, Zimra had failed, refused and or neglected to pay for professional services rendered.
The matter is pending.