Online Reporter
Nyore Madzianike
Senior Reporter
Two suspected loan sharks lost their High Court bid to avoid trial for allegedly duping a client into unknowingly signing away her US$250 000 house in Harare’s Hillside suburb.
Leon Zvarevashe and Nyasha Mhuru had approached the High Court seeking to overturn a magistrate’s decision which refused to absolve them of fraud charges at the close of the State case.
The duo claimed that the lower court had grossly misdirected itself and committed legal irregularities when it dismissed their application for discharge at the close of the State case.
But High Court judge Justice Joel Mambara ruled that there was a prima facie case against the two.
At the heart of the matter is a property in Hillside, Harare, belonging to Ms Debra Mullin. She claims she was tricked into signing away her home in a sham loan deal.
Ms Mullin, through her daughter, had sought a US$30 000 loan and met the duo at a house in Harare on February 6, 2023.
Believing she was signing loan documents, she affixed her signature and fingerprint, only to later discover that the papers were, in fact, an agreement of sale.
The duo released part of the loan and retained the property’s title deed. When repayments faltered, Ms Mullin revisited the paperwork and realised she had unknowingly sold her house.
She reported the matter to the police, leading to fraud charges against the two.
After the State closed its case upon presentation of evidence, including witness testimonies, documents and an audio recording of the disputed meeting, Zvarevashe and Mhuru applied for a discharge.
They argued that no reasonable court could convict them based on the evidence submitted.
They attacked the credibility of Ms Mullin’s version and the admissibility of the audio, claiming that the issues were civil rather than criminal in nature.
The magistrate dismissed their application, prompting the duo to seek the High Court’s intervention.
However, Justice Mambara ruled that although the magistrate had erred in stating that discharges are only granted in exceptional cases, the overall conclusion was legally sound.
He found that the State had led sufficient evidence to require Zvarevashe and Mhuru to respond.
“There was a case to answer. The core allegation is that the complainant was deceived about what she was signing,” he said.
“The transaction was structured as a loan. Money was advanced and then partially repaid, which is inconsistent with an outright sale.”
Justice Mambara also noted that even without relying on the disputed audio recording, the State’s case stood on the strength of Ms Mullin’s testimony and supporting documents.
He dismissed the claim that the magistrate had reversed the burden of proof, clarifying that being called to answer a case did not amount to a being found guilty.
“There is no violation of the applicants’ fair trial rights in the mere act of dismissing a no-case submission when evidence exists,” said Justice Mambara.
The court further held that it would be inappropriate to intervene in an unfinished trial when there was no clear illegality or miscarriage of justice.
Justice Mambara concluded that any grievances the two may have can be addressed through the ordinary trial and appeal process.
The application for review was then dismissed, and the trial will now proceed before the magistrates’ court.
