High Court judge Justice David Mangota’s wife, Roselyne Grenny, wants Justice Owen Tagu to recuse himself from hearing her divorce case arguing he is a colleague of her husband and, therefore, chances for her civil matter to be fairly tried will be next to none.
BY CHARLES LAITON
Through her lawyer Beatrice Mtetwa, Roselyne also said she was not comfortable to have her matter dealt with by a judge who was not in the Family Court. She said Justice Tagu’s appointment by Judge President Justice George Chiweshe was questionable.
Roselyne further said she would rather have preferred a situation where her matter could have been assigned to a retired judge or any other judge from another province separate from the High Court Harare judges.
In the application, Roselyne cited Justices Mangota, Tagu and Chiweshe in their official capacities as respondents. The couple’s divorce matter was barred from being covered by the media.
“This is an application for recusal from the trial action of the honourable Justice Tagu who has been allocated the file by the honourable Judge President (Chiweshe). I entertain the real fear that proceedings with the trial before honourable Justice Tagu will be prejudicial to me as there are various question marks that remain unanswered on how this matter has been handled throughout,” she said in her founding affidavit.
“The first respondent (Justice Mangota), who is the plaintiff in the main action, is a sitting High Court judge at Harare who is a colleague to both the honourable Justice Tagu and the honourable Judge President.”
Roselyne further said her husband and Justice Tagu at one point sat together in the Appeals Court and had a good working relationship with each other.
- 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
“I contend that this proximity on its own, without taking into account everything else that has taken place in the handling of this matter, makes me genuinely fear that the impartiality required of a judicial officer might be absent where a colleague sits in a matter involving another judicial officer at the same station with whom he will interact even after the court action,” she said.
“I do not know honourable Justice Tagu; I do not doubt his integrity, professionalism or good character. However, as a litigant I am entitled to be tried by a judicial officer who has no relationship with the other litigant, who does not walk the same corridors with the other litigant every day, who does not confer with other litigant in the course of duty such as in appeals and reviews. I have a right to go into court with no apprehension that the trial judge was handpicked through an unclear and irregular process for ulterior motives.”
Roselyne also said it was difficult for her to seriously believe that Justice Tagu would treat Justice Mangota as he would treat any other litigant who is not known to him and with whom he had no working relationship.
The matter is yet to be set down for hearing.
