Online Reporter
Tendai Gukutikwa
Post Reporter
THE protracted legal battle over the leadership and control of Destiny of Afrika Network (Danet) has taken another significant turn, with Mr Wilson Masokovere suffering two fresh legal defeats following the dismissal of his appeal by the Supreme Court.
In the latest setback, the High Court last week dismissed Mr Masokovere’s application to rescind an earlier order that barred him from accessing the organisation’s Mutare offices.
In a judgment handed down on July 1, 2026, High Court judge, Justice Joel Mambara, ruled that Mr Masokovere had failed to demonstrate sufficient grounds for setting aside a default judgment granted by Justice Isaac Manzunzu on February 11, 2026.
Justice Manzunzu’s order interdicted Mr Masokovere from entering or approaching Danet’s business premises in Mutare and ordered him to pay legal costs.
Dismissing the rescission application, Justice Mambara found that the evidence before the court did not establish that Mr Masokovere was still a serving trustee under the organisation’s trust deed.
“The dismissal decision remains extant. His purported trusteeship is not shown to be current,” Justice Mambara said in his ruling.
The court further rejected allegations that Destiny of Afrika Network and Destiny of Afrika Network National Housing Development Trust had secured the earlier order through fraud or stealth.
Justice Mambara held that the documentary evidence presented did not support the claims, adding that there was no basis to conclude that the respondents had acted improperly in obtaining the order.
The ruling represents another legal setback for Mr Masokovere in the long-running dispute over the governance and control of Danet, reinforcing previous court decisions that have restricted his involvement in the organisation’s affairs.
“What it demonstrates is not fraud, but failed settlement negotiations supervening after the applicant had already defaulted. Mr Masokovere had failed to provide a reasonable explanation for not opposing the original application that resulted in the default judgment. The court notes that although settlement negotiations between the parties later took place, these only commenced after the period within which Mr Masokovere was required to file opposing papers had already expired. The applicant has not given a reasonable explanation for the default. He has not demonstrated a bona-fide defence with prospects of success. The discretion to rescind cannot therefore be exercised in his favour,” ruled Justice Mambara.
The court also rejected arguments that the urgent chamber application which ultimately led to the interdict had been improperly placed before the ordinary court roll after initially being struck off the urgent roll.
Justice Mambara held that the applicable provisions of the High Court rules allowed such matters to proceed on the ordinary roll without requiring a separate reinstatement order.
The judge further found that Mr Masokovere had failed to demonstrate prospects of success on the merits of his defence.
The judgment noted that disciplinary proceedings resulting in Mr Masokovere’s dismissal remained valid because they had never been set aside by a competent court.
The ruling comes days after Mr Masokovere’s appeal to the Supreme Court was also dismissed after he failed to comply with procedural requirements relating to the payment of security for costs.
In a notice issued by the Registrar of the Supreme Court, the appeal filed by Mr Masokovere on March 4, 2026 was declared abandoned after he failed to comply with Rule 61(5) of the Supreme Court Rules, 2025.
“It is noted that you did not comply with Rule 61(5) of the Supreme Court Rules (2025) with regards to payment of security costs. In terms of sub-rule (6) of Rule 61… the appeal is regarded as abandoned and is hereby dismissed,” the notice reads.
The latest rulings come as legal proceedings involving the parties continue before the High Court. A contempt of court application against Mr Masokovere was heard on June 17, before Justice Manzunzu, the same judge who granted the February interdict evicting him from Danet’s Mutare offices.
Judgment in that matter is still pending.
The legal battles stem from a protracted leadership dispute within Danet over the administration of housing projects in Manicaland.
Earlier this year, Danet founder, Reverend Obediah Musindo, accused Mr Masokovere of refusing to surrender the organisation’s Mutare offices despite the High Court order.
Reverend Musindo alleged that the continued occupation of the premises had frustrated efforts to implement the court order, conduct audits and restore the organisation’s operations in the province.
He also accused Mr Masokovere of obstructing the takeover process and resisting the implementation of court directives.
Mr Masokovere, however, maintained that he would not vacate the offices until what he described as a proper handover process had been conducted.
He argued that the transition should account for the organisation’s projects and finances, insisting that due process had not been followed.
Mr Masokovere also disputed his dismissal, maintaining that he was a trustee rather than an employee and therefore could not lawfully be subjected to disciplinary proceedings under an employment code.
However, Justice Mambara ruled that the dismissal decision remains legally effective until it is successfully challenged and set aside by a competent court.
The dispute has centred on the management of Danet’s housing schemes in Manicaland, where thousands of members are involved.
Reverend Musindo has previously said the organisation intends to carry out a comprehensive audit of housing projects and members’ payments once full control of the Mutare offices has been restored.
