Chivayo wins case, pockets US$22m

By Desmond Chingarande | Jan. 12, 2023

Wicknell Chivayo

BUSINESSMAN Wicknell Chivayo has won a US$22 million lawsuit against the Zimbabwe Power Company (ZPC) for breach of contract with his company Intratrek Zimbabwe over the Gwanda solar project.

Intratek Zimbabwe was represented by Lewis Uriri and Taona Nyamakura instructed by Manase & Manase Legal Practitioners, while ZPC was represented by Daniel Tivadar, instructed by Muvingi and Mugadza Law Firm.

Intratrek was awarded a tender in 2014 to construct a 100 megawatt (MW) solar plant in Gwanda.

ZPC later backtracked on the deal and sued Intratrek and its managing director, Wicknell Chivayo for fraud.

Chivayo then, in turn, sued ZPC last year claiming US$22 million damages for defamation.

Chivayo complained he was losing out on business worldwide after ZPC instituted criminal proceedings against his company.

In his ruling, High Court Judge Justice Siyabona Paul Msithu said the Gwanda solar tender was still valid.

“Resultantly, it is ordered that: The procurement contract for the Engineering, Procurement and Construction (EPC Contract) of the 100MW Gwanda solar project (ZPC 304/2015) between the plaintiff and the defendant as amended is valid and binding between them,” Msithu ruled.

Keep Reading

“Consequent to the declaration of the validity of the EPC Contract, an order for specific performance of the said contract is hereby granted. The defendant’s (ZPC) claim in reconvention is hereby dismissed with costs. The defendant shall pay the plaintiff's costs of suit in the claim in convention.”

Intratrek had argued that it should be granted damages in the sum of US$25 million.

“The plaintiff was expected to engage in a robust and expensive process of engaging international banks and project financial institutions. It incurred expenses in the sum of US$3 000 000 from 2013 to 2018,” Msithu said.

“Further, the contract itself was of significant value and if it was to be implemented, the plaintiff expected to realise a return on investment of US$22 000 000. As a result of the breach the plaintiff had therefore suffered a loss of profit.”