Judgment No. SC 18/18 Civil Appeal No. 137/16 Shorai alleges that Dzingai thereafter attempted to pay the outstanding purchase price through her legal practitioners but over fifty days later on 5 July 2001. Apart from the payment having been made out of time, she claimed that he did not tender the outstanding balance in full. She contended that the amount paid was ZW$166 403.25 less than was due and her legal practitioners therefore refused to accept the payment. In view of the above mentioned breaches by the late Dzingai, Shorai again cancelled the agreement and made another application seeking confirmation of the subsequent cancellation. The first respondent argued that payment had been made by cheque to Shorai’s legal practitioners who presented it to his bank for payment. She alleged that his account was debited to the value of that cheque, indicating acceptance of the payment. The first appellant disputed this alleging that the cheque through which the late payment was attempted, was returned to Dzingai’s legal practitioners. The dispute over the outstanding balance was referred to arbitration where an award was made confirming that the purchase price had not been settled and that there remained an outstanding balance. By letter dated 4 June 2002 the appellant’s legal practitioners again advised Dzingai’s legal practitioners that the contract had been cancelled. The first respondent conceded that this position was made clear to Dzingai but contented that the cheque he presented to Shorai’s legal practitioners was presented to his bank and debited from his account. She did not however dispute that the amount held by the Arbitrator to have been outstanding had not been paid. 3