Online Reporter
Fidelis Munyoro
Chief Court Reporter
ONE of Zimbabwe’s richest families, whose late father built the iconic Sam Levy Village in Harare, is being torn apart by a feud, involving millions of dollars, forged documents and shareholder payments.
The High Court has ruled that Isaac Samuel Levy’s bid for urgent relief, in the family dispute, is not urgent.
Isaac is the oldest son of the late wealthy businessman, Sam Levy, who died in 2012.
Instead of opening the door to immediate financial relief, the court struck the matter off the urgent roll, finding that Isaac had already chosen the ordinary court process to pursue the very same claims he wanted determined on an emergency basis.
The dispute pits Isaac against his siblings, Julia Naile Naome Aryeh (née Levy), Maurice Samuel Levy and Raymond Samuel Levy, together with Farmex (Pvt) Ltd and its wholly owned subsidiary, Mutual Finance (Pvt) Ltd.
At the centre of the conflict are explosive allegations that a Special Power of Attorney, dated November 30, 2025, was forged and that a US$15 million Acknowledgement of Debt was signed under unlawful economic and psychological duress.
Isaac also accuses the respondents of unlawfully cutting off his monthly remuneration and shareholder dividend distributions in what he describes as a campaign of economic pressure designed to cripple his ability to fight the main court case.
According to court papers, Isaac argues that after challenging the disputed corporate documents, his siblings escalated the conflict by terminating his financial benefits, leaving him unable to meet household expenses or adequately fund his legal team.
He asked the High Court to urgently compel the companies to immediately restore and continue paying his monthly dividends and other financial entitlements pending the outcome of the main action.
But Justice Chikowero was not persuaded.
Although the judge accepted that Isaac had acted promptly after learning of the financial cut-off, the court held that speed alone does not establish urgency.
Quoting earlier authority, Justice Chikowero observed that urgency exists only where “the matter cannot wait.”
The decisive factor, the court found, was that Isaac had already filed summons in the High Court seeking substantially the same relief before lodging the urgent chamber application.
“The summons matter is evidence that this which the applicant has placed before me can wait,” Justice Chikowero ruled.
The judge added that there was “no irreparable prejudice to his legal interest regarding payment of dividends if I do not intervene now because that issue shall be determined in the ordinary way in the summons matter.”
In a pointed opening to the judgment, Justice Chikowero echoed remarks made in an earlier High Court decision, stating:
“These sentiments apply to the matter before me with equal force,” after citing criticism that legal practitioners had failed to carefully consider the appropriate legal remedy before approaching the court on an urgent basis.
The court ultimately upheld the respondents’ preliminary objection, declared that the matter was not urgent, struck the application off the urgent roll and ordered Isaac to pay the respondents’ legal costs.
The ruling leaves the substantive dispute unresolved.
The High Court has yet to determine whether the disputed Special Power of Attorney was forged, whether the US$15 million Acknowledgement of Debt is legally valid, or whether Isaac is entitled to the remuneration and dividends he claims were unlawfully withheld.
Those questions will now be fought in the pending main action.
