NATIONAL Foods Limited (NatFoods) has dragged a Harare magistrate to the High Court seeking her recusal in a case in which police detectives allegedly stole US$162 000 recovered as exhibit.
NatFoods wants magistrate Feresi Chakanyuka removed from the case over a court application brought by suspects Detectives Admore Masiza and Tafara Machokoto without informing NatFoods as the complainant.
The country’s largest food manufacturer also cited Edward Munodawaya of Safeguard, who assisted a NatFoods employee in stealing the money, as a respondent.
According to court papers, on March 22, 2023, US$162 000 was stolen from the NatFoods cash office in Aspindale, Harare.
The suspects in this case were Charlotte Munetsi, the company’s employee, and a Safeguard Security worker, Munodawaya.
Masiza and Machokoto were assigned to investigate the case.
The court heard that NatFoods later learnt that the detectives and their colleague, Conwell Jokonia, who is still at large, had recovered the US$162 040 from Munodawaya and converted it to their own use without disclosing the recovery.
It was also submitted that Masiza and Machokoto were arrested and US$81 000 was recovered. The officers were charged with NatFoods as the complainant.
- Fresh land invasions hit Whitecliff
- Pomona cash row escalates
- Border Timbers targets European markets
- SA name strong A side for Zim tour
Keep Reading
The case went to trial at the Harare Magistrates' Court.
The criminal proceedings against Masiza and Machokoto were discontinued after one of the key State witnesses, Munodawaya, skipped jurisdiction while standing trial separately.
NatFoods was made to understand that following trial discontinuance, Masiza and Machokoto filed an application to be awarded the exhibit money.
This application was dismissed on December 9, 2024, but the detectives successfully reviewed the lower court's decision under a High Court judgment.
The High Court directed the lower court to hold an enquiry as to whom the exhibit money was to be returned.
The food manufacturer also indicated that it understood that the inquiry proceedings arising from the High Court judgment started at the magistrates' court on or around October 10 last year.
The court heard that on various dates, Masiza and Machokoto presented evidence as to why the exhibit money should be returned to them until they closed their case.
The inquiry was held without NatFoods’ knowledge or participation.
NatFoods also submitted that only after Masiza and Machokoto had closed their case, was their representative, Bhoki Nyambo, invited to a meeting with the public prosecutor on November 11 last year.
The company submitted that, out of an abundance of caution, NatFoods retained a legal practitioner to accompany Nyambo to the meeting.
Nyambo and the legal practitioner were surprised to learn that there was an ongoing inquiry in which Nyambo was expected to testify on behalf of NatFoods.
The lawyer reportedly protested, indicating that there was no authorisation for Nyambo to be appointed as witness representative in the proceedings.
Nyambo and the legal practitioner learnt that Masiza and Machokoto had already presented evidence and closed their case.
The prosecutor allegedly then sought a postponement of the matter to November 18 last year.
It is alleged that on November 18, NatFoods’ legal practitioners indicated an inability to belatedly participate in the proceedings.
The court heard that the public prosecutor then sought to introduce NatFoods lawyers so that they could place on record their concerns over the handling of the process.
Masiza and Machokoto opposed the request, and the court ultimately ruled that the proceedings were criminal and the only lawyers accorded audience were the State and the accused's counsel.
The matter was rolled on to November 19, where the State requested a stay of proceedings, indicating that after careful consideration, it will appeal the High Court judgment.
The application for a stay of proceedings pending appeal was opposed by the detectives, while a ruling was set for November 21.
NatFoods later approached the High Court seeking a review of the initial order, arguing that the commencement and continuation of the proceedings without its participation was a violation of its fundamental right to a fair hearing and the right to be heard.
It also argued that the right to a fair hearing does not only mean that one is belatedly granted an opportunity to present their own version of facts, but is also given an opportunity to challenge an opponent's version.
According to NatFoods, there was no remedy except to set aside the proceedings and recommence under a different magistrate.
The matter is pending.
