Judgment No. SC 24/18 Civil Appeal No. SC 455/16 [12] In its address a quo the appellant submitted that, on the evidence led before the court, no contract had been proven. The person with whom the respondent had communicated in China was not the appellant but an employee of Mediterranean Shipping. More critically, the terms of the alleged contract between the respondent and the appellant had not been established. Moreover, at no stage had the respondent deposited the goods with the appellant. [13] In its judgment the court a quo found that Mr Kuwaza, the managing director of the respondent had been unclear as to the nature of the relationship between the appellant, Mediterranean Shipping, Richer International and the respondent. The court remarked as follows at page 10 of its judgment:“What is apparent from Mr Kuwaza’s evidence is that he did not produce any documents to show the existence of a contract between the plaintiff and the defendant. From the evidence that is before me it is clear that the plaintiff entered into a shipping agreement with Mediterranean Shipping Company in Hong Kong, China in April 2012 for the shipment of its plastic container from China to Zimbabwe. That contract did not involve the defendant.” [14] However at pages 10-11 of the cyclostyled judgments the court a quo stated:“I am of the considered view that the circumstances of this case show that there was a contract between the plaintiff and the defendant. Although the defendant said that it was acting as an agent of Mediterranean Shipping Company its conduct towards the plaintiff shows that it also contracted with the plaintiff separately. It is not disputed that the defendant facilitated the importation of the plaintiff’s cargo from the Port of Beira to Mutare. Thereafter it demanded payment from the plaintiff for the service that it had rendered. The parties did not enter into this contract verbally or in writing but they did so by their conduct. By demanding payment from the plaintiff for the costs it incurred in facilitating the importation of the plaintiff’s cargo the defendant created a contract between itself and the plaintiff. It made it a condition of the contract that if the administration fee was not paid, the plaintiff’s cargo was not going to be released. If there was no contract between the plaintiff and the defendant, the defendant should have simply demanded payment of its fees from Mediterranean Shipping Company which it alleges to be its principal. At law an agent’s duty is to perform his mandate on behalf of his principal and he 6