Online Reporter
Online Reporter
A GROUP of 20 property buyers has petitioned the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) to investigate how the courts have handled a long-running dispute involving a company accused of refusing to cede residential stands in Glen Lorne, Harare, despite receiving full payment more than a decade ago.
The case, which has dragged on for years and been presided over by three High Court judges — Justices Tawanda Chitapi, Siyabona Musithu and Jacob Manzunzu — centres on allegations that the seller failed to service and subdivide the land, ignored a court order compelling transfer of title and later relied on another controversial order whose authenticity is now being questioned.
The petitioners want the JSC to examine how Justice Musithu, in 2024, set aside a consent order granted by his colleague, Justice Chitapi, in 2019 — a move they argue undermined both judicial consistency and their property rights.
The dispute stems from 2013 and 2014 agreements of sale between the land purchasers and Editha Investments, a company then owned by the late businessman Mr McDonald Chapfika.
The buyers say they paid the full purchase price in hard currency for stands on Lot 1 of Subdivision C of Subdivision D of Ntaba, registered under title number 4214/2013, along Emmerson Dambudzo Mnangagwa Road in northern Harare.
Despite receiving full payment, Editha Investments allegedly failed to transfer title.
The matter was first taken to the High Court under case number HC9336/17, where, on December 14, 2019, Justice Chitapi issued a consent order following a deed of settlement between the parties.
However, the order was never implemented before Mr Chapfika’s death a year later.
Following his death, the land purchasers approached the High Court seeking to compel the late businessman’s estate to comply with Justice Chitapi’s 2019 order.
But in November 2024, Mr Chapfika’s sons — Evans and Panashe — claiming to be joint executors of the estate, filed a new application under case number HC7373/23 seeking cancellation of the consent order.
It later emerged that both Evans and Panashe had been removed as joint executors by the High Court on October 25, 2023 (DR239/2019), after Panashe resigned in protest over his brother’s alleged illegal disposal of estate assets.
On the same day, the Master of the High Court appointed Mr Caleb Mucheche as the new executor of the estate, rendering the sons’ application legally invalid.
Lawyers for the land purchasers — Messrs Chatsama and Associates and J Mambara and Associates — argued that the application was a nullity since it was brought by individuals who were no longer executors.
They further noted that the founding affidavit for Editha Investments was sworn by one Mr Derek Vuyani Kona, who failed to attach a company resolution authorising him to act on behalf of the firm.
Mr Kona’s affidavit, they added, simply reproduced the contents of the Chapfika sons’ affidavit verbatim, making it void ab initio.
Despite these objections, Evans later applied for reinstatement as executor — an application that succeeded before Justice Musithu, who subsequently set aside Justice Chitapi’s 2019 consent order.
The petitioners have asked the JSC to clarify the circumstances under which Evans was reinstated as sole executor and how Justice Musithu came to overturn his colleague’s earlier ruling.
The buyers’ concerns deepened in January 2025, when the Registrar of the High Court issued a letter dated January 23, 2025, notifying them of a purported new order by Justice Chitapi — allegedly reversing his own 2019 ruling under case number HCH4346/25.
The letter, however, never reached the land purchasers or their legal representatives, and it carried non-existent physical and email addresses.
In a letter to the Registrar dated October 1, 2025, the buyers’ lawyers demanded an explanation regarding the origin and authenticity of the supposed January 22, 2025, order.
They noted several irregularities, including the lack of a barcode, the absence of proper service and the fact that their clients were never invited to any hearing.
“We inquire the circumstances in respect of which this matter was brought before Justice Chitapi given that he himself had granted a final order by consent in this matter.
“How and under what circumstances was this matter revived?
“The right to be heard is part of administrative justice codified in terms of Section 68 of the Constitution and Section 3 of Zimbabwe’s Administrative Justice Act as well as the common law.
“Our clients were never notified of any case management meeting in January of 2025 and to date, they have not been served with the order of January 22, 2025.
“We also note that contrary to practice, the order in question does not have a barcode and we wonder if it is an authentic order of the court.”
Responding to the complaint, the JSC, in a letter dated October 20, 2025, acknowledged receipt of the petition and assured the landowners that it would look into the complaints raised against both Justice Musithu and the Registrar of the High Court.
