adminZvikomborero Parafini
HARARE businessman Michael Shongwe Ndoro’s request to be discharged, at the close of the State case for fraud, was rejected by magistrate Clever Tsikwa, who ruled that he had a case to answer.
Ndoro, along with his mistress, Tunika Phaenah Mkhahanana, appeared in court on allegations that in 2019, he forged company documents, purporting that his ex-wife, Precious Ndoro, had resigned as director and shareholder of Zororo Energy Company.
When he tendered these documents to the Zimbabwe Energy Regulatory Authority (ZERA), and applied for an electricity generation licence, ZERA released a public notice in a local newspaper.
Precious then filed a police report and he is now set to put his defence on July 27.
Mkhahanana was acquitted at the close of the State’s case after the court found no evidence linking her to the offence.
The court heard that in 2018, Precious and Micheal registered Zororo Energy Company Limited, each with 50 percent shareholding.
The court heard that in 2019, they had a misunderstanding which led to Precious filing for divorce and on November 26, 2019.
The High Court granted a decree, dissolving the civil marriage between them.
However, the High Court reserved the issue of appropriate distribution of matrimonial assets, which included Zororo Energy Company, for separate proceedings.
Soon after the divorce, Ndoro left the matrimonial home, taking with him title deeds to their joint properties and company documents.
The States said Ndoro forged a company resolution purporting that Precious had resigned her directorship and shareholding of Zororo Energy Company.
He allegedly effected changes on the CR 14 (directorship documents) by resigning Precious and appointing Tunika.
Precious reported the matter to the police.
In his ruling, magistrate Tsikwa said Michael has to explain how he tendered the documents and what he intended to achieve by tendering them to ZERA, if he didn’t want to defraud the entity.
“The company’s registry has distanced itself from the documents so it’s the court’s view that he should explain how he tendered these documents.
“By tendering the forged document, the intention was for ZERA to act on them. However, ZERA or its employees didn’t act on them.
“There was a real risk that if they had fallen in the hands of an incompetent employee, they would have been acted upon.
“The fact that Mkhahanana was made a director cannot be taken as proof that she intended to misrepresent to anyone as all correspondence were addressed to Ndoro, so I find her not guilty,” he said.
Mathew Masinge
Online Reporter