Judgment No. SC 24/18 Civil Appeal No. SC 455/16 Herbstein & Van Winsen, The Civil Practice of the High Courts of South Africa, op cit, p 569. WHETHER THE CONTRACT OF AGENCY WAS PROVED [28] This was the basis of the respondent’s cause of action before the High Court. The respondent’s managing director did not know the exact relationship between the appellant, Mediterranean Shipping and Richer International of Hong Kong. From the evidence, it is clear that the appellant was not involved in the transactions that took place in China. It does not conduct operations outside Zimbabwe. It only got involved, as agent of Mediterranean Shipping, in tracking the container once it landed in Beira and in having it transported to Mutare Dry Port. It was also clear from the evidence that, as agent of Mediterranean Shipping, the appellant was supposed to receive payment from Mediterranean Shipping for its role in checking the Bill of Lading and ensuring that the cargo was delivered to Mutare Dry Port. The appellant’s managing director explained however that it is the practice in Zimbabwe for the recipient to be billed directly by the appellant. [29] Clearly, no contract of agency was proved. The fact that the appellant invoiced the respondent for handling fees does not, on its own, show the existence of a contract. The exact relationship that existed between the two parties was not established. In the circumstances, the court a quo should have granted the application for absolution from the instance which was made at the close of the case for the plaintiff. The court a quo accepted that the respondent had not produced documents to show the existence of a contract. The court further accepted that the respondent had entered into a shipping agreement with Mediterranean Shipping in Hong Kong and that the appellant was not 14