THREE Zanu PF heavyweights in Manicaland have clashed over control of a party property in Rusape and the matter has spilled into the High Court.
BY CHARLES LAITON
The property in question, stands number 29 and 589 Rusape, are both owned by Zidco Holdings (Pvt) Ltd which is a commercial wing of the ruling Zanu PF party.
According to court papers shown to NewsDay, the three, namely Makoni West legislator Kudzanai Chipanga, businesswoman Mandi Majoni, who owns Vicemast (Pvt) Ltd, and businessman Cleopas Mugomba are all fighting to lease the property.
In the court papers, Mugomba submitted his five-year lease with Zanu PF which is set to expire in December 2017, but claims the party unilaterally withdrew the it and offered the same premises to Majoni despite a pending court case filed under case number HC9429/14.
The same property was again seized from Majoni, who still has a lease that is set to expire in April 2019, and later offered to Chipanga.
This prompted Majoni to file an urgent application on March 6 this year under case number HC2076/15, challenging the illegal termination of his lease agreement.
However, Mugomba, who is the initial occupier of the premises, has blamed Chipanga for using his position and political muscle to outwit him on leasing the property by handing it over to Majoni.
- Chamisa under fire over US$120K donation
- Mavhunga puts DeMbare into Chibuku quarterfinals
- Pension funds bet on Cabora Bassa oilfields
- Councils defy govt fire tender directive
Keep Reading
Mugomba claims he never violated his lease agreement with Zanu PF, but his failure to pay rentals was as a result of interferences on his business by the party’s bigwigs contrary to claims that he had accumulated a debt of $36 000 in rental arrears.
But Zidco maintains that on April 10 2014, it cancelled Mugomba’s lease agreement for failing to pay his rentals.
However, Mugomba dismissed the claim, saying: “Plaintiff’s (Zidco) major shareholder, Zanu PF instructed its youths to collect rentals from the flea market shareholders ostensibly to be used by plaintiff in the campaigns for the 2013 elections.
“Plaintiff has purported to lease the same property to Vicemast Services whose directors (Majoni) have interfered with defendant’s occupation and use of the leased property.” All the cases are pending at the High Court.
