Clique Pharmacy scandal implodes

Cletus Mushanawani
Editor
THE courtroom was tense as the case of Healthwell Pharmacy trading as Clique Pharmacy unfolded, a drama marked by sharp accusations, counter-claims, and unexpected twists.
What began as a straightforward commercial dispute quickly spiralled into a saga of arrests, lawsuits, and allegations of misconduct, drawing public attention in the process.
From the outset, the plaintiffs, Mr Simbarashe Mushambi Dube and his wife, Mrs Paula Dube sought to portray Clique Pharmacy as a business entangled in questionable dealings, alleging breaches of trust and unlawful practices. Yet, the defence and former co-director, Mr Douglas Nzombe Chiutsi, countered with equal force, accusing the plaintiffs of fabricating claims and manipulating evidence to tarnish Mr Chiutsi’s reputation.
Each hearing revealed new layers of intrigue—witnesses contradicted themselves, documents were challenged, and the line between victim and perpetrator blurred.
The drama intensified when arrests were made mid-proceedings. The courtroom became a battleground of legal manoeuvres, where every motion carried the weight of potential victory or devastating loss.
In the end, High Court’s Commercial Division through Justice Faith Mushure delivered a decisive ruling that cut through the chaos.
While acknowledging the complexity of the case and the seriousness of the allegations, Justice Mushure in a 56-paged judgement delivered on April 7, 2026, dismissed the Dubes’ application with costs.
She also set aside the minutes of a shareholders’ meeting held on July 3, 2024, in which Mr Chiutsi had acknowledged prejudicing Healthwell Pharmacy US$258 708, with the plaintiffs claiming they had suffered a loss of US$170 000.
Mr Chiutsi welcomed the judgement, while Mr Dube said: “We have received the judgement and are considering its contents for an appropriate response in due course.”
The dispute arose after co directors, Mr Simbarashe Mushambi Dube and his wife, Mrs Paula Dube, petitioned the court seeking an order compelling fellow director, Mr Douglas Nzombe Chiutsi to pay US$160 770,57 plus interest and costs, accusing him of breaching his duties during his tenure at the pharmacy.
Genesis of the dispute
The court heard that the Dubes and Mr Chiutsi were shareholders at Clique Pharmacy until it was closed down sometime in 2024.
At some point in their lives, the Dubes and Mr Chiutsi were mutual friends, with their friendship stretching back to their university days. It was as a result of this relationship that the three mooted an idea to open and operate Clique Pharmacy.
Mr Dube was the major shareholder, holding 34 percent shares, while his wife and Mr Chiutsi held 33percent shares apiece.
The Dubes alleged that during the course of their business at Clique Pharmacy, they discovered that Mr Chiutsi was systematically and deliberately siphoning funds from the pharmacy through procurement fraud committed through the generation of fictitious goods received vouchers without invoices, and proof of delivery of the drugs which he purported had been purchased by the pharmacy. A total of US$15 621,37 was allegedly lost through this.
The Dubes further alleged that Clique Pharmacy purported to have received drugs worth US$284 036,21 from fictitious suppliers which drugs were never received by the pharmacy. The plaintiffs further alleged that Mr Chiutsi, who at the material time was the pharmacy’s executive director, was responsible for its day-to-day running. His responsibility included ordering stock, managing stock inventory and dispensing. In his capacity as such, he was responsible for running the entire business operation in accordance with sound business judgment, procuring stocks for the second defendant in accordance with industry practice and in compliance with all the applicable laws and regulations and ensuring that all payments were made to the suppliers on the basis of goods actually procured and delivered.
The Dubes further stated that Mr Chiutsi was expected to act in the best interests of the pharmacy, but, in breach of this duty he had, from March 2021 to April 2024, misappropriated funds.
It was the Dubes’ allegation that had Mr Chiutsi not misappropriated these funds, they would have been distributed among the shareholders.
Further, on July 3, 2024, Mr Chiutsi had, during a shareholders meeting, acknowledged that he had prejudiced the second defendant in the sum of US$258 708 and resultantly, the plaintiffs had suffered a prejudice of US$170 000.
The Dubes alleged that they managed to recover US$40 000 from Mr Chiutsi, and consequently, Mr Chiutsi was liable to pay US$160 770,57 based on the final forensic investigation figures which brought the share of the Dubes to US$200 770, 57.
The Court Petition
At the High Court hearing, Justice Mushure was expected to determine whether or not Mr Chiutsi was liable to the Dubes’ in the sum of US$160 770, 57, together with interest thereon calculated at the rate of five percent per month from the date of filing of the summons to the date of payment, plus costs of the suit, and whether or not Mr Chiutsi was mentally incapacitated when he attended the meeting held on the July 3, 2024.
In their declaration, the Dubes assert that during the meeting held on July 3, 2024, Mr Chiutsi admitted causing total prejudice to Healthwell Pharmacy amounting to US$258 708, of which US$170 000 directly affected the Dubes.
However, Mr Chiutsi sought the setting aside of the minutes of the July 3, 2024 meeting on the basis that at the time of contracting, he was mentally incapacitated as he had just been released from remand prison after being arrested for alleged fraud relating to the dispute for eight days.
Witnesses’ Testimonies
In support of the Dubes’ claim, the plaintiffs led evidence from four witnesses,
Mr Simbarashe Dube, Mr Clever Gapara, Ms Michelle Rumbidzai Ringoziva, and Mr Thompson Mucheki.
Mr Simbarashe Dube:
He stated that he worked with Mr Chiutsi as a co partner at Healthwell Pharmacy, where he was the majority shareholder and a director. His duties included managing and reviewing stock, maintaining adequate working capital, ordering and dispensing stock, overseeing inventory, initiating and processing payments, as well as recruiting and supervising staff.
He further explained that, in accordance with the shareholder agreement, Mr Chiutsi served as Clique Pharmacy’s managing director and, by default, its supervising pharmacist.
He testified that between March 2021 and April 2024, the Dubes uncovered malpractice involving a systematic and deliberate under receiving of products, concealed through inflation of unit prices on goods received. At the point of payment, he noted, the receipt amount would appear consistent with the goods received voucher, thereby masking the discrepancy.
According to his evidence, approximately US$15 000 was misappropriated through this scheme.
He added that a second scheme was later discovered, involving the generation of fictitious goods received vouchers without supporting invoices, which he attributed directly to Mr Chiutsi.
He stated that, with respect to the goods received vouchers in question, the products were never recorded in the security registers—where all deliveries were logged—and their identity could not be established even up to the time of trial.
He further noted that two suppliers, each purportedly owed slightly more than US$5 000, had not collected their order amounts despite more than a year having passed since the transactions.
Relying primarily on documents relating to an order from Pharmaceutical and Chemical Distributors (PCD), he testified that the goods received voucher reflected a total of US$11 399, 97.
While the figures appeared to balance at first glance, closer inspection revealed discrepancies: the invoice showed delivery of 15 units of Levetiracetam and 50 units of Omeprazole, yet the goods received voucher recorded zero units for both. To conceal these shortages, the unit costs were inflated on the voucher, resulting in a total prejudice of US$933,25.
He further testified that a second scheme involved payments to fictitious suppliers identified as Varichem Kuda, Varichem Martin, and Varichem Cosmas.
Inspection of the security registers confirmed that the goods received vouchers linked to these suppliers were not reflected as deliveries on the dates indicated. Mr Dube explained that he attempted alternative methods to verify the existence of these suppliers, but all efforts proved futile, as they did not exist.
He stated that US$284 036,21 was lost through these fictitious payments, unsupported by invoices, thereby casting doubt on the validity of the transactions.
After uncovering these malpractices, Mr Dube convened a meeting with Mr Chiutsi on March 16, 2024, at Holiday Inn, Mutare. At that meeting, he presented evidence of both the under receiving of products and the generation of fictitious invoices.
Mr Dube testified that Mr. Chiutsi expressed shock at being exposed and acknowledged a breach of loyalty.
To avoid public disclosure, both parties agreed that a forensic audit was unnecessary, and Mr Chiutsi undertook to restitute the loss. When asked to estimate the extent of the prejudice, Mr. Chiutsi suggested approximately US$40 000.
In view of their partnership, they agreed he would sign a restitution agreement for that amount, despite Mr Dube’s knowledge that the actual figure was higher.
Subsequently, on April 29, 2024, Mr Chiutsi wrote to Healthwell Pharmacy and the Dubes, expressing his intention to sell his shares in accordance with the shareholders’ agreement.
At that point, the Dubes reminded him of the restitution agreement and indicated that any share sale would necessitate a forensic audit to independently determine the extent of prejudice, which would be factored into the valuation of his shares. Accordingly, Healthwell Pharmacy appointed CapVest to conduct the audit.
Mr Dube testified that Mr Chiutsi refused to cooperate with the audit process. The resulting audit report led to criminal charges being filed against Mr Chiutsi, who was subsequently placed on remand at the Mutare Magistrates’ Court.
Bail was denied, and he remained in custody until July 2, 2024, when he was released pursuant to a tripartite agreement between the parties’ legal practitioners and a guarantor.
Following his release, Mr Chiutsi met with the Dubes on July 3, 2024, in a meeting attended by himself, his wife, and the Dubes.
Mr Dube stated that Mr Chiutsi was neither ill nor disoriented during the meeting. Having known him for seven years, Mr Dube observed nothing unusual in his demeanour, nor were they informed of any health concerns regarding the first defendant.
He emphasised that the meeting proceeded normally, with the parties engaging in clear, logical, and constructive discussions.

Michelle Rumbidzai Ringoziva:
She is an IT specialist employed by Wild Tech Solutions, the supplier of the ProPharm system. She testified that ProPharm is a pharmacy software comprising four modules, including Stockwin, which is used for receiving and maintaining stock, and RXwin, which is used for dispensing drugs against prescriptions.
She explained that invoices were processed under the Stockwin module and that once data was saved in the system, it could not be altered.
All information relating to Healthwell Pharmacy was stored on the server, with records showing the exact date and time entries were saved.
She stated that in the system’s backup records, there was no entry showing Ubuvuzi supplying goods on October 26, 2022. Instead, invoice number 0006195 for US$19 955,01 appeared under Varichem Cosmas, on the first defendant’s order.
She emphasised that the system itself could not be edited.
However, she clarified that goods received vouchers were kept in Stockwin, and within that module supplier details could be edited—provided the user had been granted editing rights.
The ability to make such changes depended entirely on the pharmacy’s setup and on who had been authorised to exercise those rights.
She further testified that the system allowed for editing of supplier addresses or other supplier details if the pharmacy intended to maintain that supplier, thereby providing scope for such modifications.
Thompson Mucheki:
He is a certified fraud examiner who conducted a forensic investigation at Clique Pharmacy in May 2024.
He testified that the auditors reviewed documentation including supplier invoices, goods received vouchers generated within Healthwell (Clique) Pharmacy, and the security registers.
The auditors identified variances between goods received vouchers generated through the ProPharm system and the corresponding invoices. These variances, which the auditors attributed to under receiving of stock, amounted to US$15 621, 37.
He stated that the goods received vouchers in question had been generated by Mr Chiutsi.
He further testified that he discovered additional goods received vouchers that were unsupported by invoices and absent from the security registers.
These vouchers were styled under the names Varichem Kuda, Varichem Cosmas, and Varichem Martin, and together totalled approximately US$284 036, 21.
He explained that the auditors invited Mr Chiutsi for an interview, but he declined to respond until he had seen the report. The audit report was finalised on September 30, 2024, and subsequently shared with the client.
Eight witnesses gave evidence in support of Mr Chiutsi’s case. These include Mr Chiutsi, his wife, Mrs Benhilda Chiutsi, Mr Samuel Tinashe Maenzanise, Mr Wellington Mazambani, Mr Washington Dengu, D. Sabastine Madamombe, Dr Tarzen Mugadza, and Dr Prudence Mhlanga.
Mr Chiutsi:
He testified that he was a pharmacist at Healthwell Pharmacy, while Mrs Dube served as general manager responsible for the day to day operations. She oversaw orders, which required countersignature by another party, and no order could be processed without the Dubes’ express approval, as Mr Dube authorised all payments.
He further stated that Mr Dube was actively involved in the daily running of the pharmacy, including even minor transactions. Mr Dube was fully aware of the pharmacy’s operations and was responsible for daily cash banking and all payments.
He testified that all products not procured locally were obtained under the names Varichem Kuda, Varichem Cosmas, and Varichem Martin. These suppliers had initially been prefixed as Geddes, but were later changed to Varichem.
He emphasised that this procedure and these suppliers were known to all directors, and that all directors bore responsibility for any malpractice within the pharmacy.
He further testified that Clique Pharmacy had not suffered any loss, but that a business dispute arose in January 2024 among the shareholders regarding profit sharing calculations. He stated that the Dubes had opened a separate pharmacy in downtown Mutare—Clique Downtown Pharmacy—in breach of the shareholders’ agreement.
He testified that since 2020–2021, when Healthwell Pharmacy was established, the Dubes had been taking stock from Healthwell Pharmacy without a board resolution.
In January 2021, he discussed with the Dubes that they had taken stock from Healthwell Pharmacy without making payment, and therefore the stock should be treated as part of their profits, from which he would receive his share.
This did not sit well with the Dubes, leading to a fallout that was later resolved through mediation by senior doctors in Harare.
Following this dispute, Mr Chiutsi stated that the work environment became toxic.
He decided to open his own pharmacy without informing the Dubes, and the relationship deteriorated further once they learnt of his decision. He explained that the infighting had become unbearable, prompting him to establish his own pharmacy (Allievate Pharmacy).
He testified that Mr Dube subsequently brought a series of allegations against him, which he objected to.
However, because his professional licence was tied to Healthwell Pharmacy and he wished to part ways amicably, he agreed to Mr Dube’s demand for US$40 000, which was to be deducted from his share of the profits.
He stated that although the figure had been arbitrarily set by Mr Dube, he considered it sufficient to facilitate a peaceful separation.
He further testified that Mr Dube did not take kindly to his resignation, interpreting it as a declaration of war, presumably because Mr Chiutsi was regarded as the face of Healthwell Pharmacy, and had built a strong reputation in Mutare.
He added that the Dubes never expected him to leave. He wrote to them proposing that they purchase his shares in Healthwell Pharmacy, but received no response.
Mr Chiutsi testified that he was arrested on June 24, 2024, around 5am, on the eve of opening his own pharmacy, Allievate Pharmacy, which was located very close to Clique Pharmacy.
He was arrested by police officers from Highlands Police Station in Harare. He noted that although Clique Pharmacy operated just 20 metres from Mutare Central Police Station, Mr Dube used his connections to orchestrate his arrest, which he believed was intended to prevent him from opening his pharmacy.
At the time of his arrest, he stated that the audit had not yet been completed, though it was said to be forthcoming within four days.
He testified that he was arrested on the basis of a preliminary report that was never shared with him. The final audit report was only produced on September 30, 2024—the same day the Dubes sold Healthwell Pharmacy.
He testified that he was released on July 2, 2024, at the mercy of the Dubes, after being denied bail at the magistrates’ court, and while awaiting the hearing of his appeal against the refusal of bail at the High Court.
Soon after his release, a WhatsApp group was created comprising himself, the Dubes, and a mutual friend, Mr Washington Dengu.
Mr Chiutsi stated that Mr Dengu advised him that his freedom was more important than anything else, encouraging him to secure his release first and deal with other matters thereafter.
He told Mr Dengu that prison conditions were extremely harsh and that he would do everything possible to avoid returning.
He testified that he spent seven days in prison, which was overcrowded with machete gangs.
During his incarceration, his feet became swollen, and from the third day he was prescribed Diazepam, a sleeping tablet, due to difficulty sleeping. He stated that upon release, he was not well physically or mentally, but was advised to attend a meeting with the plaintiffs to resolve “his issues.”
On the day of his release, his wife contacted their family doctor, Dr Prudence Mhlanga, to arrange a consultation.
Upon learning that he was taking Diazepam, Dr Mhlanga advised that there was no need to see him immediately.
On July 3, 2024, however, Mr Chiutsi consulted Dr Mhlanga before attending the meeting with the Dubes later that afternoon.
He testified that the meeting initially involved himself and Mr Dube, with Mrs Dube joining shortly thereafter.
Because he was repeatedly breaking down and crying, his wife was eventually called in to support him.
He stated that throughout the meeting he kept crying and apologising, but Mr Dube refused to entertain any contribution from him, treating the meeting as an exercise of authority and power.
He emphasised that he was clearly unwell during the meeting, noting that on more than one occasion he rolled on the floor, clung to Mrs Dube’s legs, and begged for forgiveness.
He testified that Mr Dube insisted the process had to be expedited to resolve the impasse, so the meeting continued despite his condition.
He understood the meeting to be a preliminary discussion, laying the foundation for further talks, and believed that the minutes later circulated were drafts. He added that other issues still required resolution, including the fact that he had purchased Healthwell Pharmacy for US$700 000 and had pledged his house as security.
Mr Chiutsi further testified that on June 28, 2024, while still in remand prison, he was served with an ex parte application for an interdict to prevent him from opening his own pharmacy.
He was also served with an amended shareholders’ agreement, which he was being pressured to sign while in custody.
He stated that in March 2024 he was presented with a new shareholders’ agreement containing objectionable provisions, including that if daily sales fell below US$3 500 he would be automatically dismissed, and if dismissed, he would be barred from opening a pharmacy in Mutare, Harare, or Rusape for two years. He refused to sign the agreement, which he said prompted his decision to open his own pharmacy.
Benhilda Chiutsi:
She is Mr Chiutsi’s wife. She testified that prior to her husband’s release from remand prison, she attended a meeting with members of his family—namely his mother, three sisters, and two brothers—together with the Dubes, Mr Washington Dengu, and Dr Mugadza.
She did not know who convened the meeting, but explained that Mr Dengu and Dr Mugadza had informed the family that they had already engaged in discussions with the Dubes.
At that meeting, it was proposed that the Chiutsi family release their house to the Dubes in order to resolve the issue of Mr Chiutsi’s arrest.
However, it was discovered that the transfer was impossible because only Mr Chiutsi had access to the relevant documents. It was therefore concluded that he alone had the capacity to discuss the matter further.
She testified that Mr Chiutsi was released on July 1, 2024, but was weak, lacked energy, and had swelling on one side of his face.
She was aware of the meeting held on July 3, 2024, attended by the Dubes and Mr Chiutsi. She was later called in to assist and calm her husband, who was crying, so that the meeting could proceed.
She stated that she did not know why her husband was crying and did not hear much of the discussion, but understood that he was denying the allegations against him and insisting that the Dubes knew what had transpired. She explained that she did not fully comprehend the details, as she was unfamiliar with how the parties conducted their business.
She testified that she had seen the minutes of the meeting and signed them, but emphasized that she had been told the meetings were held on a “without prejudice” basis and were not legally binding. Her primary concern was simply to have the matter resolved.
It was her evidence that Mr Chiutsi was being pressured by family and friends to attend the meeting, and that he signed the minutes unwillingly. She stated that there was urgency to resolve the matter quickly to prevent his re arrest, and that she personally encouraged him to comply for that reason.
She further testified that Mr Chiutsi consulted Dr Prudence Mhlanga on July 3, 2024, and was prescribed medication.
She added that he was attended by Dr Mhlanga on July 2, 4, and 5, 2024, and was referred to a psychiatrist on July 4, 2024.
Dr Prudence Mhlanga:
He testified that he attended to Mr Chiutsi following his release from remand prison, after being contacted by Mrs Chiutsi, who expressed concern about her husband’s condition.
He stated that when Mr Chiutsi visited his surgery on July 3, 2024, he presented with symptoms suggestive of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. He was anxious, unable to eat or sleep, and was not his usual self. The incarceration, he explained, had taken a severe toll on him.
He testified that he prescribed anxiolytics and antidepressants, including Citalopram, an antidepressant with anti diuretic properties.
When Citalopram proved ineffective, he added Fluoxetine the following day and referred Mr Chiutsi to Dr Madamombe, who attended to him.
In his professional view, Mr Chiutsi was not in a proper state of mind to attend a meeting, given his condition.
He emphasised that prescribing such medication and referring a patient to a psychiatrist was not a decision taken lightly, underscoring the seriousness of Mr Chiutsi’s mental health at the time.
Dr Sabastine Madamombe:
He testified that he attended to Mr Chiutsi on July 4, 2024, after being called by Dr Mhlanga to examine him. He stated that he conducted a mental state examination and a clinical review, during which he found that Mr Chiutsi was suffering from severe anxiety disorder and acute stress disorder.
He explained that he prescribed Citalopram, a medication used to treat anxiety and acute stress.
He further testified that he attended to Mr Chiutsi on three occasions and observed that he was not in a proper frame of mind to make commitments.
He also advised that Mr Chiutsi undergo psychotherapy to address his acute stress and anxiety disorder.

Dr Tarzen Mugadza:
He confirmed that a meeting took place at his surgery involving the Dubes, Mr Chiutsi’s family, and Mr Washington Dengu. The meeting had been convened by Mr Dube.
At that time, Mr Chiutsi’s family had also approached him, seeking his assistance in engaging the Dubes, as they were uncertain about the circumstances surrounding Mr Chiutsi’s incarceration.
He testified that during the meeting, Mr Dube alleged that Mr Chiutsi had stolen approximately US$250 000 and demanded that he sign over his house to avoid police involvement.
He stated that Mr Chiutsi’s family expressed willingness to surrender the property, provided that his release from remand prison was secured.
The Court’s Findings
Justice Mushure stated:
In the final analysis of the evidence before me, I find that the first plaintiff (Mr Dube) was fully aware of the so-called fictitious suppliers. He fully knew that they were not authorised in terms of the law. He fully appreciated the MCAZ consequences of procuring drugs through unauthorised suppliers. When the plaintiffs (the Dubes)’ relationship with the first defendant (Mr Chiutsi) went south, the plaintiffs made a deliberate and conscious, but unfortunate decision to kill two birds with one stone by getting rid of the first defendant in the worst manner imaginable and at the same time, by attributing the second defendant’s MCAZ proscribed misdemeanours to the first defendant, yet he was in on those misdemeanours all the way.
I find that the ProPharm system can be manipulated. I find that the evidence placed before this court to support the allegation of misappropriation of funds through under-receiving of goods and failure to account for discounts improbable. I am not convinced that the first defendant altered the goods received vouchers, which would be attached to the invoices for payment, for years without anyone noticing the alterations, given the firm grip the first plaintiff had on the payments. I also find it improbable that there is no trace or explanation of where the goods that had been received but not declared went and if they were taken by the first defendant, that he would do so for so long undetected. I find it improbable that the second defendant’s staff would conduct stock takes and fail to notice a systematic pilferage over close to three years by the first defendant.
I find it improbable that the second defendant’s systems were so porous to this extent.
I find that in fact, the plaintiffs did not take kindly to the first defendant’s intention to abandon the partnership.
The plaintiffs’ treatment of the first defendant was a payback, not only for his decision to leave, but the manner in which he was interacting with the second plaintiff.
We know now that the second plaintiff was complaining about the first defendant not giving her space to practice, being undermined by the first defendant and seemingly small issues like placement of a refrigerator.
In my view, coming against this backdrop, the fact that the first defendant decided to stand on his own was a bitter pill to swallow for the plaintiffs.
In their bid to stop him, they cried misappropriation of funds. The plaintiffs were bent on inflicting the worst pain possible on the first defendant for his decision to go it alone.
However, as demonstrated in the preceding paragraphs of this judgment, the evidence on record does not support the claim. The alleged damages have not been proved to entitle the plaintiffs to the relief they seek.
Similarly, the plaintiffs cannot rely on the 3 July 2024 meeting minutes to found liability on the part of the first defendant.
I find that the first defendant was mentally incapacitated when he attended that meeting. The minutes of that meeting ought to be set aside and the plaintiffs claim ought to be dismissed in its entirety.
On the question of costs, it is trite that costs follow the outcome.
The first defendant has prayed for costs on a higher scale. This prayer seems to have been made as a matter of course as the first defendant has not justified why I should apply a punitive scale in awarding costs in this matter. In my view, costs on an ordinary scale would still meet the justice of this case.
Court Order
In the result, it is ordered that: 1. The minutes of the second defendant’s shareholders’ meeting held on the 3rd of July 2024 be and are hereby set aside. 2. The plaintiffs’ claim be and is hereby dismissed with costs.
Ends