Mrs Nkomo wins appeal on her car

The Rhodesia Herald, 5 November, 1965

MRS Johanna Nkomo, wife of the restricted nationalist leader Mr J. M. Ν. Nkomo, today won her appeal against the Government’s seizure and confiscation of her car.

In the Appellate Division of the High Court here, the Acting Chief Justice, Sir Vincent Quenet, upheld the appeal on two grounds and ordered the Government to pay costs of the action.

Mrs Nkomo, who claimed that the Government had illegally confiscated her car, was in court today.

The car had been seized at the time the People’s Caretaker Council movement was banned, the court was told.

Sir Vincent found that a policeman had been empowered by warrant to confiscate property which he had reason to believe belonged to the banned PCC

But according to law, the issuer of the warrant, and not the police, had to be satisfied by evidence on oath that the property belonged to the PCC.

The judge also found a part of the new sections of the Unlawful Organisations Act to be invalid.

The new sections of the Act empowered the seizure and confiscation of property use in any way or in connection with the purposes or activities of the organisation before or after it was declared to be unlawful.

The words “before or” were invalid, he said.

Mrs Nkomo was represented by a Bulawayo attorney, Mr L. Baron.

LESSONS FOR TODAY

Vents surrounding the late President Joshua Nkomo are situated within a broader historical context of Zimbabwe’s struggle for independence from colonial rule. Dr Nkomo was a significant figure in this movement and faced various governmental restrictions due to his political activities.

The Government’s decision to seize and confiscate Mrs Nkomo’s (Mama Mafuyana’s) car likely stemmed from her husband’s political affiliations and activities, which were viewed as a threat by the ruling authorities at that time.

Mama Mafuyana’s appeal against the Government’s actions indicates that she sought legal recourse through the judicial system to contest what she perceived as an unjust seizure of her property.

Winning an appeal suggests that the court found merit in her arguments against the Government’s actions, possibly ruling that there was insufficient justification for the seizure or that proper legal procedures were not followed.