Nherera sues Shah for improper arrest

maliciously caused his arrest, prosecution and imprisonment on unfounded corruption charges.
He is claiming US$100 000 for malicious prosecution and US$300 000 for malicious arrest and detention.
Prof Nherera was in 2006 jailed for two years effective for corruption and after completing his sentence, the High Court heard his appeal and quashed the conviction.
He was being charged for allegedly soliciting for a bribe from Mr Shah, who operated Gift Investments, so that his company would be awarded a tender to supply the Mazda Swaraj buses to Zupco.
In the summons filed at the High Court recently by Magwaliba and Kwirira Legal Practitioners, Prof Nherera chose to sue Mr Shah on the grounds that he was the one who made a police report.
Prof Nherera claims he was aware that Mr Shah’s reports were false and malicious.
“As a result of the defendant’s report, the plaintiff (Prof Nherera) was arrested and prosecuted for contravening the Prevention of Corruption Act.
“He was sentenced to two years of which one year was suspended for five years,” the papers read.
On November 2009, the High Court quashed the conviction on appeal and set aside the sentence.
“Defendant (Mr Shah) when procuring the arrest, prosecution and imprisonment of plaintiff maliciously, caused the plaintiff injury to reputation, dignity and liberty,” the papers read.
Mr Shah, through his lawyer Advocate Lewis Uriri, has filed opposing papers arguing that he had nothing to do with the arrest, prosecution and imprisonment of Prof Nherera.
Adv Uriri said Mr Shah did not instigate the arrest, prosecution and imprisonment of Prof Nherera. Mr Shah, according to the response, did nothing more than making a police report on information that he had.
The lawyers argue that the police were the ones who made the decision to arrest while the State decided to prosecute the case.
Mr Shah also denies responsibility over the imprisonment that was done by a regional court. The fact that the conviction was quashed, according to Mr Shah’s lawyers, did not mean that the report was false.
It was indicated that the report was made in good faith without an intention to damage the persona of Prof Nherera.