PROPERTY businessman Frank Buyanga has been taken to the High Court by a prospective home owner, Daisy Shamhu, who is demanding damages in the sum of $330 555 following a botched property sale deal.
BY CHARLES LAITON
In the summons filed last year under case number HC4908/15, Shamhu cited Buyanga, Chegutu Investments and Hamilton Property Holdings as first, second and third respondents respectively and the matter has now been set to be heard this week.
According to Shamhu, sometime in January 2010, she entered into an agreement of sale with Chegutu Investments, for an immovable property called Lot 5 of Lot 430A Highlands Estate measuring 4 057 square metres for $85 000.
“The plaintiff (Shamhu) paid the full purchase price for the property and the property was transferred into her name with the Deeds Registry Office on March 12, 2010, under title deed of transfer number 947/2010,” she said in her declaration.
“The plaintiff failed to take vacant possession of the property from the second defendant (Chegutu Investments) as the plaintiff’s title was successfully challenged by the true owner of the property, being Albert Magodyo . . . as a result plaintiff’s title with the Deeds Office . . . was set aside and Magodyo’s original title was reinstated.
“The first defendant (Buyanga), fully aware of the tainted title, proceeded to sell and transfer the property from the second defendant to plaintiff under title deed of transfer 947/2010.”
- 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
Shamhu said she was seeking an order from the court to compel Buyanga to pay $330 555 in damages and rentals which she was forced to pay after being evicted from the property and “an order to pierce the corporate veil of the second and third defendants” to prove Buyanga was the owner.
In his response to the claims, Buyanga denied any involvement with the cited firms, saying he was not the owner and had nothing to do with the transfer of the said property.
“First defendant is neither a director nor a shareholder of second and third defendants and no basis has been given why the corporate veils of the two entities should be lifted,” Buyanga said in his plea.
“The first defendant never acquired title in the property in question nor did he ever make any warranties to plaintiff. Accordingly, first defendant is not liable to plaintiff as claimed or at all.”
