Lawyers wrangle over US$57 000

Fidelis Munyoro Chief Court Reporter

TWO Harare law firms are embroiled in a legal wrangle over a US$57 000 pile of cash that was found in a strongroom belonging to one of them during police investigations into theft of trust funds involving more than $32 million.

The money was stashed in a strongroom at Mtetwa and Nyambirayi Legal Practitioners when police stumbled upon it while investigating the theft of trust funds by the firm’s accountant Tendai Murambiza.

However, Rugwandi and Rujuwa Legal Practitioners claim the money belonged to them and had been given to Murambiza for safekeeping by Mr Mark Rujuwa, once an associate of Mtetwa and Nyambirayi from March 2016 to December last year, but is now running his own law firm with Mr Rugwandi.

Mtetwa and Nyambirayi, while recognising that the money is not part of what was stolen by Murambiza, still want to know why it was in their safe in the first place.

The wrangle reached boiling point last week and spilled into the High Court amid claims that Ms Mtetwa now allegedly wants to use the money to offset what her law firm is owed by Murambiza.

In it’s urgent application for an anti-dissipation interdict filed on Wednesday last week, Rugwandi and Rujuwa listed Ms Mtetwa, Tawanda Nyambirai, Mzokuthula Mbuyisa, Douglas Coltart and Murambiza, along with Mtetwa and Nyambirayi, as respondents.

Rugwandi and Rujuwa are seeking interim orders to compel Mtetwa and Nyambirayi to deposit in hard currency US$57 000 with the Registrar of the High Court pending the finalisation of the case but if the court will not give that interim order then they want Mtetwa and Nyambirayi and its staff interdicted from using or dissipating the cash.

Rugwandi and Rujuwa said the money found on 24 or 25 February was in a separate and clearly marked container and it was proven to belong to a client of Rugwandi and Rujuwa, said the draft order.

Mr Rujuwa explained in an affidavit how the money ended up at Mtetwa and Nyambirayi, with the police having seemingly concluded that there was no link between the money stolen by Murambiza and that which was found in the strongroom.

He said he performed a transaction for the sale of a property at his law firm after business hours and was worried about security issues, as Rugwandi and Rujuwa were still being set up and Mr Rugwandi was out of town and would only return the following week.

He said he kept the money with him until the following day on a Friday, but his worry about security did not abate.

He then spoke to Murambiza whom he had worked with when he was an associate at Mtetwa and Nyambirayi and he said he could keep the money safe in the strongroom over the holiday weekend and return it on Tuesday 22 February.

It is also Mr Rujuwa’s argument that the US$57 000 was handed to Mr Mbuyisa and Mr Coltart on 25 February, after a meeting with the police where he demonstrated how the money belonged to his client. The police, he further argued, accepted that there was no reasonable suspicion that the money was associated with the theft of trust funds.

“More importantly, the respondents executed an acknowledgement of debt on 28 February 2022, just about two days after the money was found in their strong room. The acknowledgement of debt does not record US$57 000 as being part of the money recovered from (Murambiza).”

Mtetwa and Nyambirayi oppose the application by Rugwandi and Rujuwa arguing there was no basis for the relief sought in this case.

Ms Mtetwa said following the arrest of Murambiza, he was taken to their offices for him to hand over the property of the law firm that he possessed.

He also had to hand over money that he kept since he was the custodian of the keys to the strong room.

According to Ms Mtetwa, it was during the handover process that Murambiza advised them and the police that the US$57 000 belonged to Rugwandi and Rujuwa, saying the money was given to him for safekeeping.

But Ms Mtetwa insists in her opposing papers that her law firm is simply demanding an explanation on how the money came to be in their law firm’s strong room.

She concedes that the money is not part of the theft of trust funds case.