Online Reporter
Peter Matika-Bulawayo Bureau
LAWYER and CCC leader, Welshman Ncube, has come under scrutiny amid allegations that he failed to fully account for approximately US$400 000 belonging to William Trust following the sale of three properties in Bulawayo.
Two of the properties were reportedly sold to the Seventh-Day Adventist Church (SDA), while the third was sold to CCC interim secretary-general, Mr Sengezo Tshabangu.
Ncube acted as the conveyancer in all three transactions.
Administrators of the William Trust fund, which owned the properties, have since filed an urgent chamber application at the Bulawayo High Court seeking an interdict to halt the transfer of the properties to the new owners.
According to court papers, the first property, Lot 1 of 11A of Matsheumhlope, measuring 5 323 square metres, was sold for US$260 000, with the agreement signed by city lawyer, Mr Kucaca Phulu, on behalf of Estrier (Pvt) Ltd.
An additional US$32 000 was payable to cover commissions, transfer fees and related costs.
The second property, being the remainder of Lot 11A of Matsheumhlope, was sold to the SDA Church for US$250 000.
The sale agreement stipulated that the value-added tax amounting to US$37 000 would be shared between the seller and the purchaser in a 55:45 ratio.
The third property — the remainder of Lot 3 of Lot 11A, measuring 8 670 square metres — was valued at US$140 000, with VAT payable by the purchaser.
In their urgent application, the trustees submitted that the combined value of the three properties is close to US$700 000 and contend that Prof Ncube is required to account for about US$400 000, alleging that only partial amounts were remitted to the trust in instalments.
“The respondents have not paid the full purchase price in terms of the agreements signed, but seek to proceed with the transfer of the properties by virtue of irrevocable powers of attorney granted in favour of the third respondent (Prof Ncube) and fourth respondent (Promise Ncube), respectively,” reads the application.
The trustees further argue that although the first and second respondents, Estrier (Pvt) Ltd and the SDA, claim to have paid the full purchase price to Prof Ncube, such payments were either not made in accordance with the agreements or, where they were, did not result in the release of funds to the applicant as required.
“Without the applicant receiving the full purchase price in respect of the properties, despite having complied or being ready to comply with the terms and conditions of the agreements, it would be unjust and inequitable for the transfer of the properties to be allowed to proceed, as this would result in undue prejudice to the applicant,” the trustees submit.
Prof Ncube has since opposed the application, arguing that it is irregular and discloses no proper cause of action.
“If the applicant’s position is that the first and second respondents did not pay, it should simply have invoked the breach provisions of the agreements instead of approaching the court,” he argued.
“One does not require the approval of a court to cancel an agreement. The court does not supervise agreements between parties. What is noteworthy is that the applicant does not specify the amount it claims is due. It concedes that it received money from the third respondent, yet does not state how much was received,” Prof Ncube said.
He further contended that the applicant was seeking to be paid twice.
“The applicant is being deliberately vague because it has no cause of action. It concedes that it received some money, the amount of which it does not disclose, and then alleges that it has not been paid in full and demands payment in full. Of what amount? How much is outstanding?” he said.
The matter is set to be further deliberated in court on March 3 this year.
