admin
Mashudu Mambo
A BEDRIDDEN man from Sauerstown suburb in Bulawayo has been summoned to court after he allegedly sold one housing stand twice; to the Sauerstown Seventh Day Adventist church and a resident Stanley Goredema.
The first respondent (accused) is Gideon Fanyana Ndlovu, the second respondent is Goredema and the third respondent is the registrar of deeds. The first respondent’s wife, Promise Nkomo, said she was saddened by the actions of the church which has ordered her bedridden husband to appear in court.
“It’s heart breaking that my husband has been ordered to appear in court in this critical condition. We received summons on 30 April. He was given ten days to appear in court but the respondent to the allegations is bedridden, he can neither walk nor talk,” she said.
Nkomo stated that they were having a land dispute with their local church.
“We sold the stand to the church but however, there is a person who came in claiming that the stand had been sold to them in 2007. My concern is that my husband offered this land to the church out of love for his fellow congregants but now people are turning a blind eye on his condition and treating him like an outcast,” she said.
Sauerstown Seventh Day Adventist church has filed an application at the High Court in Bulawayo over a church stand that was allegedly sold to two parties.
In their application, the SDA states that in 2017 they purchased land from the first respondent.
“Sometime in 2017, the applicant purchased plot 31 Sauers township of Dawsons from the first respondent for a sum of US$16 500. The sale was governed by a deed of sale and the first respondent represented himself while the applicant was represented by Simon Dube.
“As it appears from the agreement of sale the deposit payment of US$10 500 was made upon signing the agreement of sale. The balance was to be monetised through equal monthly instalments of US$430 commencing on 30 November 2017,” read the application.
The SDA church stated that there was a hindrance when they tried transferring ownership.
“When the applicant attempted to take transfer of ownership, there was a stumbling block. It turned out that the first respondent had previously sold the land to the second respondent. The church resolved not to open a case against the first respondent who is also a member of their church.
“The first respondent’s legal practitioners, Mudenda Attorneys, assured the applicant that they would handle the situation and reach some understanding with the second respondent. Mudenda Attorneys failed to resolve the issue with the second respondent.
“This therefore means that as things stand unless the first respondent proves otherwise, the agreement of sale between the first and second respondent stands. The first respondent must therefore compensate the applicant the market value of the stand of US$22 000.
“It would be inimical to logic to request a refund as US$16 500 then is different from US$16 500 today. The transaction was done seven years ago,” read the application.
In the application, the SDA stated that if there was no order to compel the first respondent to transfer the land, he would dispose of the land to another person.
“The first respondent must be compelled to transfer lot 46 to the applicant as this was duly paid for. The attempts to subdivide the land after selling to the applicant and the suggestion to compensate the second respondent by giving him lot 46 betrays the fact that the first respondent is less than honest in his conduct and dealings. If there is no order to compel him to transfer, he may still dispose of the stand to another person,” read the application.
Online Reporter