Debt collector drags tobacco company to court
A RUSAPE debt collector has dragged tobacco contracting company Agritrade Leaf Tobacco to court for allegedly failing to pay a collection commission of $7 900.
Mashayamvura Enterprises, which is being represented by Mr Taurai Khupe, of Khupe Law Chambers has filed a civil suit at Rusape Magistrates’ Court.
Agritrade, whose Rusape-based auction floors were prematurely shut down early this year by the Tobacco Industry and Marketing Board (TIMB) over a number of irregularities, had by this week not responded to the application.
The debt collecting company argued that it entered into an agreement with Agritrade to recover $47 371 from its debtors for which Mashayamvura Enterprises was entitled to a 10 percent collection commission and $20 administration fee per debtor.
However, the plaintiff said Agritrade refused to remit the commission arguing that the person who signed the agreement was no longer employed by the company.
“On June 5, 2018 Mashayamvura Enterprises entered into an agreement with Agritrade Leaf Tobacco of recovering overdue debts from creditors on their various addresses.
“It was agreed that the plaintiff shall charge 10 percent collection commission and $20 admission fee per every debtor from debt recovered.
“Plaintiff and defendant agreed that the plaintiff shall recover the outstanding debt from the debtors within a month thus, with effect from June 5, 2018 to July 5, 2018.
“The plaintiff effected services within three weeks from the June 5, 2018 on 154 debtors and recovered the sum of $47 371.47, which bulky of the money was deposited direct to defendant’s account as per agreement terms and conditions.
“Defendant breached the agreement by failing to pay the money as per terms and conditions of the agreement to plaintiff. The defendant was supposed to pay the total sum of $7 638.68, which includes 10 percent collection commission and $20 administration fee per debtor as indicated on the minutes of a meeting held on June 13, 2018, to plaintiff for all the 154 debtors who paid the money after service had been effected.
“Thus, instead of defendant settling the total balance of $7 638, went on to state that the money cannot be disbursed to plaintiff because its representative then one Mr Kondo, who signed the contract on behalf of defendant, is no longer employed by defendant,” argued Mr Khupe.