LEBANESE businessman Jamal Joseph Hamed, who is entangled in a $1,2 million diamond ring wrangle with First Lady Grace Mugabe , is demanding clear particulars to enable him to properly defend the lawsuit against him.
BY CHARLES LAITON
Grace last week issued summons urging the court to order Hamed’s three residential properties in Avondale and Vainona to be executable with a view to recover her money. But the businessman has since challenged President Robert Mugabe’s wife to properly table her case.
In her litigation, Grace also said she was seeking an order declaring Hamed’s shareholding in three companies, Thatchfree Investments, Zulaf Investments and Super Earth Properties, to be executable. Hamed, however, said that could only be done if the First Lady proved she was entitled to such relief.
Through his lawyers Mtetwa and Nyambirai, Hamed said in order for him to respond to Grace’s claim, he wanted the latter to explain what his alleged interest and shareholding in the three companies set out in her claim were and “how the alleged interests and shareholding in the said companies are held by him”.
“Is it alleged that any of the companies whose alleged properties are sought to be declared specifically executable a party to the alleged transaction as between the parties. If it is alleged they are, full details of their involvement in the transaction are required,” Hamed said.
“If they are not alleged to have been involved in the transaction, on what basis would their properties be executable on an alleged debt arising from a transaction they were not involved in? On what basis is it alleged that the defendant’s (Hamed) principal residential address is number 9 Houborne Hill, Borrowdale in Harare?”
The businessman further said he wanted to know how it is alleged the contract was entered into between him and Grace and that if it was oral, the First Lady should produce its full terms.
“Is it alleged that Radiam BVBA (Pvt) Ltd and Zardiam DMCF (Pvt) Ltd were involved in the transactions, if it is so alleged, full details of the involvement of each company are required. What type of diamond, specifically, is it alleged was contracted for? The full grade of the alleged 100 carats is required,” Hamed said.
Responding to the issue of the alleged payments, the businessman said he wanted the First Lady to explain when exactly was it when she made the full payment and the full dates when such was done.
“From which account, specifically, is it alleged the payment was made? Full details of the account holder, the account number and a copy of the account statement are required. Is it alleged that payment was done in one transaction and into which account is it alleged payment was made into?” Hamed said.
“And when from the date of payment, is it alleged defendant was to supply the diamond ring? What is it alleged was a lengthy delay? Full details of when payment was made, when delivery was supposed to be made are required. Did the plaintiff put the defendant in mora prior to demanding a full refund? Did the plaintiff cancel the agreement before demanding a full refund?”
Hamed further said he also wanted Grace to explain whether or not she cancelled the agreement and if so when such a move was made.
“If it is alleged that she cancelled the agreement, how was such cancellation communicated to the defendant? A copy of the cancellation document if cancellation was in writing is required. If cancellation was oral, full details thereof, including full text of the cancellation, date of cancellation and how same was communicated to the defendant,” he said.
Responding to the issue of the $30 000 diamond ring which the First Lady claims was allegedly tendered instead of the million dollar one, Hamed said: “When is it alleged defendant tendered a $30 000 diamond ring, how and where is it alleged a tender was made? Was the tendered diamond ring valued at the time of tender? If it was, by whom and where? If no valuation was done, how does plaintiff come to the conclusion that the diamond ring was valued at $30 000?”
Hamed also said he wanted Grace to explain “how and when is it alleged that the defendant accepted to effect the refund, is it alleged that any proposed refund was unconditional and when and how is it alleged the $120 000 was refunded?”
The matter is still pending.