Streak re­jects trans­fer pay­ment from ZC

Sunday News (Zimbabwe) - - Front Page - Mehluli Sibanda Se­nior Sports Re­porter

FOR­MER Zimbabwe se­nior na­tional cricket team coach Heath Streak has re­jected pay­ment in the form of a trans­fer by Zimbabwe Cricket made to him at the be­gin­ning of this month, in­stead de­mand­ing through his lawyers that the amount owed to him should be paid into an ac­count out­side the coun­try.

In a let­ter writ­ten on 7 Oc­to­ber by lawyers rep­re­sent­ing Streak in his long stand­ing bat­tle with ZC, the for­mer Zimbabwe skip­per re­jected an amount of $117 378.77 paid to him by the cricket mother body.

“Please be ad­vised that we have no in­struc­tions to ac­cept full pay­ment amount of $117 378.77 de­posited into our Trust ac­count on the 4th of Oc­to­ber 2018. Our in­struc­tions are to ac­cept the sums of US$39 123.09 for Mr Heath Streak which you in­di­cated in your let­ter dated 25 Septem­ber 2018. The bal­ance will be paid back to your­self less the ap­pli­ca­ble bank charges,’’ wrote Streak’s lawyers to ZC’s le­gal rep­re­sen­ta­tives.

From the com­mu­ni­ca­tion from his lawyers, the ba­sis for the re­fusal to ac­cept the money is that Streak will only ac­cept the pay­ment if it is made by the In­ter­na­tional Cricket Coun­cil.

“The out­stand­ing bal­ance is only ac­cept­able if paid di­rectly to our clients from the In­ter­na­tional Cricket Coun­cil (ICC) in the same form and man­ner that ICC has been pay­ing your client’s other cred­i­tors as ad­vised in our re­sponse to yours dated 25th Septem­ber 2018,’’ con­cludes the let­ter from Streak’s lawyers.

It has been es­tab­lished that Streak, while he was na­tional team coach was get­ting his salary into his lo­cal bank ac­count and the rea­son why ZC paid what they owe him to his lawyers was be­cause they “do not want to fall foul of the coun­try’s ex­change con­trol laws.” ZC of­fi­cials claim Streak wants to be paid in for­eign cur­rency.

What ZC owe Streak is the ba­sis on which he filed a High Court ap­pli­ca­tion to have the cricket mother body liq­ui­dated which was lodged last month. ZC lawyers, Mhishi Nkomo Le­gal Prac­tice are op­pos­ing Streak’s ap­pli­ca­tion on the ba­sis that the cricket mother body is not bank­rupt and is more than able of set­tling its debts.

“The 1st Re­spon­dent is not in­sol­vent. The 1st Re­spon­dent is more than ca­pa­ble of set­tling its debts when they be­come due and payable. No ev­i­dence has been placed be­fore the court to sug­gestest oth­er­wise. The Ap­pli­ca­tion is im­prop­erly be­fore the court,’’ reads the op­pos­ing pa­pers. rs.

In ad­di­tion, ZC said that Streak has made claims that ZCC are un­able to pay him what is due to him, which they chal­lenge to be un­true since the pay­ment to him was de­layed by thehe dis­pute on what he is ac­tu­ally owed.

“The Ap­pli­cant­cant has claimed that the 1st Re­spon­dentt is un­able to pay his salary. This is fac­tu­al­lyy in­cor­rect as the Ap­pli­cant’s salary was du­lyy paid and is be­ing held in the trust ac­coun­tunt of Messrs Mat­sikidze and Mucheche. The rea­son for this is that there is cur­rently a dis­pute re­gard­ing the sums due and ow­ing and the mat­ter is be­foreefore a labour of­fi­cer,’’ fur­therer reads the court pa­pers filed­filed by ZC lawyers.

In his Highh Court ap­pli­ca­tion, Streak’s lawyers said they were also act­ing ting on be­half of the for­mer na­tional team coach as well mem­bers of his tech­ni­cal team, Lance Klusener, Sean Bell and Wayne James. ZC, in their op­pos­ing pa­pers state that South African, Klusener has had what­ever was out­stand­ing to him paid by the ICC while amounts owed to James and Bell are be­ing held in trust by lawyers lo­cally wait­ing to pay the duo.

ZC have stated in their op­pos­ing pa­pers that Streak was fired for fail­ing to take Zimbabwe to the 2019 In­ter­na­tional Cricket Coun­cil World Cup via the Qual­i­fier held in this coun­try at the be­gin­ning of this year.

“It is com­mon knowl­edge the na­tional team failed to qual­ify for the World Cup af­ter a dis­grace­ful de­feat. It was as a di­rect re­sult of such a poor per­for­mance that the con­tacts were ter­mi­nated, on no­tice and law­fully in line with their con­tracts. The Ap­pli­cant and other em­ploy­ees per­formed dis­mally there­fore the 1st Re­spon­dent had no op­tion but to ter­mi­nate their con­tracts,’’ reads the pa­pers. The mat­ter is still to be heard in court.

— @Mdaw­ini_29

Heath Streak

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Zimbabwe

© PressReader. All rights reserved.