October 21, 2022

Tagwirei distances self from ZPRA court application

Spread the love

Blessing Masakadza

BUSINESSMAN Kudakwashe Tagwirei has distanced himself from court proceedings instituted by war veterans under the banner of Zimbabwe People’s Revolutionary Army (ZPRA) and its coordinator Fredrick Mutanda who have sued the Government seeking compensation for properties “seized” when they were declared unlawful in 1982.

Tagwirei said the allegations were aimed at defaming him and tainting his business reputation.

In the High Court application (case number 7028/22) filed on Thursday, Mutanda who is the coordinator of ZPRA Liberation War Ex-Combatants Coordinating Committee, Frederick Mutanda, listed dozens of properties, including Nijo Produce, a prime piece of land in Harare’s Borrowdale, he alleges were seized and never returned.

They cited Betterbrands Construction (Pvt) Limited, Chaminuka Private Estate, Broadhaven Construction (Pvt) Limited and Environmental Management Authority (EMA) as defendants.

In a joinder application, Mutanda, Ncube and the ZPRA committee claimed that Tagwirei and businessman Scott Sakupwanya were running some of the properties which they want back from the Government and sought a court interdict to stop them from running the said properties.

Tagwirei through his lawyer Admire Rubaya has written to Mutanda saying he was wrongfully cited as he has no relationship with the other parties being sued demanding withdrawal of the application and threatened to institute legal actions against them in the event that they fail to comply.

In the letter, Rubaya said ZIPRA Liberation War Ex-Combatants Committee and its coordinator Mutanda raised certain allegations against Tagwirei which were not substantiated by any evidence.

“We confirm that the referenced court application was referred to us for consideration. Having considered the application, we have come to the conclusion that it is a dog’s breakfast which must be promptly withdrawn for one or more of the following reasons;

“The application seeks an order against our client when he has not been made a party to the proceedings.

“The application makes bare and unsubstantiated allegations against our client and other cited individuals. It suffers from the want of evidence,” read part of the letter.

The lawyer argued that Tagwirei cannot be joined to something which has nothing to do with him.

“The joinder procedure has been misused and misapplied. The application seeks various unrelated reliefs which include a mandamus and a declaration.

” The strange reliefs sought amount to judicial and procedural heresy, as you seek an interim and final interdict concurrently in an application for joinder, which is highly inappropriate.

“Our client has no relations with the cited respondents and it is strange how it has been made part of the proceedings when both the facts and evidence do not make him a part thereof.

“In light of the above, it is self-evident that the application is not for justice rather it is actuated by malice and it is meant to grand-stand and create a false, defamatory and injurious narrative clothed in judicial robes to avoid detection.

“We advise that, at law, both procedurally and substantively, the application lacks the most elementary seriousness and decency with which the most trivial of judicial proceedings ought to be instituted with.

“In view of the above, we are instructed to demand, as we hereby do, that you promptly ‘withdraw’ the application failing which our client shall proceed to utilize the remedies available to him at law,” the letter stated.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this:
%d bloggers like this: