Chinese investment firm Livetouch Investments (Private) Limited has been ordered to pay US$380,000 to Avim Investments (Private) Limited after the High Court of Zimbabwe ruled that the former had no lawful authority to oppose the urgent application, a finding that cleared the way for immediate enforcement.
Justice Regis Dembure confirmed an ex tempore ruling issued on 12 February, stating that Livetouch must pay the outstanding sum or face execution by the Sheriff of Gweru.
“The application succeeds,” the judge declared, adding in a pointed rebuke that “what is void at all times is void for all purposes” as he struck down Livetouch’s opposition for lacking a valid board resolution.
The ruling is the latest development in a protracted commercial dispute involving hundreds of thousands of dollars in coal-related transactions.
It is common cause that the applicant and Livetouch entered into a written contract in terms of which the applicant would supply and transport 1,000 tonnes of coal fines from Hwange to the first respondent’s stated delivery point for an agreed sum.
A dispute arose after the applicant alleged that the first respondent had breached the contract. The respondent also made a counterclaim.
The conflict began after an arbitral award issued in August 2021 by the late retired Justice Nivembee Mtshiya compelled Livetouch to pay Avim US$815,000 for 56,000 tonnes of coal fines, with Avim obliged to release the product upon payment.
The award was later registered by the High Court in Masvingo in June 2022, but litigation between the parties continued for years as Livetouch insisted it owed less, accused Avim of failing to provide release documents, and alleged that the coal stockpile did not exist.
Avim returned to court on an urgent basis in November 2024, stating that Livetouch had failed to pay US$380,000 and collect a stockpile of coal fines that Avim said it was maintaining at its own expense.
The company warned that heavy rains threatened to wash away the stockpile, causing irreversible loss.
It argued that “urgent intervention” was needed to prevent the product from being destroyed and claimed it had already provided release orders and delivery schedules to Livetouch.
Although Livetouch eventually filed an opposing affidavit, Avim’s lawyers attacked the validity of the board resolution authorising the filing, arguing it referred to a completely different case that had been withdrawn and therefore could not empower the deponent to act. Justice Dembure agreed, ruling that the resolution “did not speak to the current litigation” and was therefore a nullity. Without valid authority, he held, “all the papers presented by the first respondent fall away,” leaving the court with no legitimate opposition to the application.
The judge dismissed arguments that the point of law had been improperly raised without notice, finding that ordinary points of law may be raised at any stage and that the issue went “to the root of the matter” without causing unfairness to Livetouch.
After hearing extensive submissions, he concluded that the absence of a valid board resolution rendered Livetouch’s participation “incurably bad,” making it improper for the court to consider any of its defences.
The court’s operative order compels Livetouch to pay the US$380,000 or its Zimbabwe-dollar equivalent at the prevailing interbank rate, failing which the Sheriff is authorised to proceed with execution. Livetouch was also ordered to pay the costs of the application.
