Top Menu




VP in bitter fight over US$50 000

By Rex Mphisa

Vice-President Kombo Mohadi suffered a blow when a Beitbridge magistrate dismissed his application seeking to seize control of a bank account he holds with his erstwhile business partners.

Mohadi a month ago filed an ex-parte application before Beitbridge Civil Court (Case Number 179/19) over a joint bank account he has with businessmen Oscar
Chiromo and Tichaona Mushipe.

Beitbridge resident magistrate Langton Mukwengi dismissed the same reloaded application, saying it ignored agreed terms of a deed of disengagement between
Mohadi, Chiromo and Mushipe when they broke up their business marriage.

“Application for an interdiction is hereby dismissed. This court has no jurisdiction to hear the matter.

“The parties agreed that the High Court will have jurisdiction and, secondly, a final interdict cannot be granted if respondents’ affidavits reveal real
dispute of facts,” Mukwengi ruled.

“Applicants would only want to rely on the deed of settlement for the purpose of enforcement of their agreed terms, but do not want to use the jurisdiction
that was agreed upon by the parties in that same agreement.”

Mohadi’s in his recent application 265/19 at the Beitbridge Civil Court, through his lawyer Norman Mugiyo, wanted the court to force Chiromo, Mushipe and
CBZ Bank in Beitbridge cited as first, second and third respondents respectively, to release to him US$50 000 as his dividend from Malindi Storage and
Logistics (Pvt) Ltd, which they ran together.

They have since split on Mohadi’s instance.

In the application he submitted, the three respondents were refusing to release his share arising from Malindi Storage and Logistics (Pvt) Ltd money.
Mukwengi said according to their disengagement deed, the parties had agreed any disputes arising from the case would be resolved at the High Court.

Coming short of mentioning that Mugiyo should have properly advised his client, Malindi Storage and Logistics and Mohadi, Mukwengi said his court had no
jurisdiction to go against the said deed of disengagement.

“First and second respondents in their opposing affidavits clearly disagree with the report that was prepared by an account(ant) they describe as ….which
smacks of favouritism, bias and misplaced accounting principles”.

Mukwengi said in clause 22 of the deed of disengagement, the parties had agreed to approach the High Court if any dispute arose as had indeed occurred.

Comments are closed.

AMH logo

© 2019 The Zimind. All Rights reserved.

DMMA logo