BY DESMOND CHINGARANDE THE battle for control of the late Eddies Pfugari (born Edward Nyanyiwa)’s estate is back in court after one of his sons allegedly demolished the mogul’s property in Chegutu.
The son, Stephen was taken to court by Flying Pot (Pvt) Limited which he co-manages with Edward Nyanyiwa.
According to court papers, Stephen and Edward are half brothers.
Edward is also one of the applicant’s directors, co-opted and registered before Pfugari passed away.
Currently, the deceased estate has no executor as the appointed executor was challenged and removed through the courts.
According to court papers, Stephen went to one of the contested properties in Chegutu between April 24 and 27, 2022 and demolished its walls.
In its applications, the applicant sought an interdict barring Stephen from continuing to demolish the property.
The property in question is stand number 30542, once a flourishing restaurant along the Bulawayo-Harare Highway whose roof was destroyed by fire.
- 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
Chegutu Municipality once wrote to the then executors, advising them of the derelict state of the building, saying it had become an eyesore and cause for concern because of its location.
The applicant argued that if Stephen was not stopped, there will be nothing left of the building.
High Court judge Justice Catherine Bachi-Mzawazi ruled in favour of the applicant.
“The applicant has also demonstrated that the demolition is an injury actually committed and continuing as the respondent clearly stated that they want to destroy the whole property and put in its place a new one,” Justice Bachi-Mzawazi ruled.
“Further, the fact that the respondent continued to destroy the building even after the police had intervened supports the applicant’s averments that there is no alternative remedy.”
The judge said the applicant met all the requirements of an interim interdict.
“It has not been challenged that they have a prima facie right emanating from the fact that they are the ones who have been managing the property in issue up to the time of the demolitions by the respondent,” the judge ruled.
- Follow Desmond on Twitter @DChingarande1
