admin
Fidelis Munyoro–Chief CourtReporter
BUILDING contractor Mr George Katsimberis had his third bid to block his former business partner from selling residential stands on an upscale estate in Borrowdale thrown out by the High Court.
Through his lawyer Mr Tendai Biti, Katsimberis previously brought two similar urgent chamber applications on two different occasions and neither went beyond preliminary objections, as they were struck-off by two different judges of the High Court.
Unhappy with the High Court decisions, Mr Katsimberis appealed to the Supreme Court and lost.
But still, Mr Katsimberis could not relent and brought a third application for the same relief before Justice Jacob Manzunzu.
The judge, however, decided the matter on the papers without hearing oral arguments, finding that the matter was already dealt with, and by the Supreme Court as well as the High Court, and Mr Biti sought to bring an appeal disguised as an urgent chamber application.
“The applicant has argued this matter as if it were appeal proceedings,” said Justice Manzunzu. “A lot was said about how the court erred in that judgment. I will not bother to go into the details of such an argument.”
The High Court cannot sit as an appeal or review court over its own judgment. No court can, which is why appeals are always to a higher court.
He, therefore, upheld the preliminary point by those being sued that the matter was over and done with even if there were some respondents who did not oppose the application as alleged by Mr Katisimberis.
The Supreme Court delivered a judgment in September last year in the case in which Mr Katsimberis and his company, Coolfitch Investments, was challenging a High Court decision to strike his case off the court roll.
The building contractor and his company had sued former business partner Mr Kenny Sharpe and owner of Pokugara Properties, along with Harare couple Erasmus and Sibusiwe Chindove who bought a residential stand from Pokugara.
But his bid to overturn the High Court decision fell through, when a three-judge panel of Justice Chinembiri Bhunu, Justice Hlekani Mwayera and Justice Samuel Kudya dismissed the appeal.
In the judgment, Justice Bhunu accepted the argument of Mr Sharpe’s legal counsel Advocate Tawanda Zhuwarara that Mr Katsimberis had nolegal basis to stop Pokugara properties from selling its land.
In 2018, the Supreme Court threw out yet another appeal by Mr Katsimberis where he wanted to stop Mr Sharpe and Pokugara properties from selling property that belonged to them.
Mr Katsimberis’ lawyer Advocate Tererai Mafukidze instructed by Mr Biti, had to admit that while Mr Katsimberis wanted an interdict, the facts did not warrant the granting of such an order.
This marked the end to a long saga where Mr Katsimberis wanted to get an order stopping Pokugara from selling its properties to the public.
Mr Katsimberis had wanted to interdict Pokugara from transferring the property to the Chindove couple until the dispute between him and Mr Sharpe was resolved.
In the lower court, Justice Mafusire ruled that the relief Mr Katsimberis sought was not urgent and struck the matter off, upholding the preliminary objections raised by Mr Sharpe’s legal counsel who brought to the attention of the judge that the matter was once dealt with by another judge, but was being smuggled back to court disguised as a completely different matter.
He ruled that Mr Katsimberis’ application should thus fail since the matter had been dealt with and criticised Mr Katsimberis’ conduct saying he deserved censure.
Online Reporter