Judgment No. SC 15/18 Civil Appeal No. SC 266/15 The respondent, per contra, argued that the appellant’s conduct showed that it exonerated him from liability and accepted the transfer of suretyship from him to Lazarus Nyakudya. He argued that on 26 September 2011, he wrote a letter addressed to the appellant with Lazarus Nyakudya a part of which read: “… As such, we wish to register the transfer of surety to Mr Lazarus Nyakudya who will arrange the debt repayment arrangements with ZFC.” The respondent submitted that this letter communicated their intention to transfer the suretyship to Lazarus Nyakudya and the communication from Chitauro that his superiors agreed to such transfer was proof that he was exonerated from liability. The respondent also argued, that the letter from the appellant to its legal practitioners showed that the liability had shifted from the respondent to Lazarus Nyakudya. The letter stated the following: “Re: HANDED OVER DEBTOR: FARMCORP ENTERPRISE RESPONSE Please find attached the response from the above mentioned debtor. They have acknowledged the debt and written a letter to transfer the surety from Tapiwa Joel Furusa, to one, Lazarus Nyakudya. May you proceed with the recovery of the debt. We hope the information available will aid you in this case …” It is on the basis of that letter that the respondent submitted that the appellant accepted that his obligation as a surety had been transferred to Lazarus Nyakudya and that this was also confirmed by the deed of surety signed by Lazarus Nyakudya. The question that thus lies for determination by this Court is whether the documents and evidence produced by the respondent in the court a quo show that his deed of suretyship was cancelled. 6