PROMINENT banker Nicholas Vingirai has formally lodged a complaint with the Judge President of the High Court, accusing Justice Joel Mambara of granting a court order that was “neither sought nor argued” before him.
This is not the first time Justice Mambara’s alleged conduct has come under scrutiny.
Earlier this year, ferrochrome producer Zimasco (Private) Limited filed complaints with the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) and the Law Society of Zimbabwe, implicating the judge alongside Harare lawyers Wilson Manase and Valentine Kwande in what the company alleged was an unlawful takeover attempt by businessman Shepherd Tundiya’s Avim Investments.
In a detailed letter dated December 16, 2025, addressed to Judge President Justice Mary Zimba-Dube and copied to the Office of the President and Cabinet, Chief Justice Luke Malaba, JSC executive secretary Walter Chikwana and the Zimbabwe Anti-Corruption Commission, Vingirai outlined his grievances arising from case number HCH5356/25.
Vingirai contends that Justice Mambara allegedly exceeded his judicial mandate by determining substantive issues in a matter where only preliminary points were before the court.
“I am aggrieved by the manner in which Justice Mambara handled the matter. Many a time, we have heard of judges exposing their corruptness through their judgments, but this one by Justice Mambara, in my view, really takes the cup,” he alleged.
According to Vingirai, the hearing in HCH5356/25 was limited to preliminary points within an application for condonation to file a future rescission application.
“And, indeed, the Judge reserved judgment only in respect of the preliminary points,” he stated.
- Heated estate wrangle sucks in JSC, Sacu
- Magistrates' court for Mkoba
- Ziyambi defends Judiciary Amendment Bill
- Rights activist guns for top judge
Keep Reading
Despite this, Vingirai alleges that the judge went on to rule on matters that were neither argued nor pleaded by either party.
He further alleges that Justice Mambara proceeded to grant both rescission of a judgment and joinder of parties, despite such relief not having been sought in the application before him.
“Despite the seriousness of the preliminary points, the judge dismissed all preliminary points and, inexplicably, proceeded to grant the application on the merits, which merits had not been argued by both sides,” Vingirai said.
“More preposterously, the judge proceeds to grant rescission of the judgment in my favour under HCH5712/24 and orders joinder of the applicants to my application under HCH5712/24, yet the application before him was not even asking for rescission and joinder, it was merely asking for permission to file an application for rescission.”
He questioned the legal basis for granting relief that had not been sought.
“The question I have for the Honourable Judge President is this: ‘Was Justice Mambara granting all this in anticipation of the matters being brought before him in the future?’ This is simply astonishing,” Vingirai wrote.
He further argued that the judgment affected by the ruling, HCH5712/24, was not a default judgment but a consent order involving the government of Zimbabwe.
“The Judgment under HCH5712/24, which the applicants contend is a default judgment, is actually an Order by Consent of the Ministry of Lands, Agriculture, Fisheries and Rural Development,” Vingirai said.
“The permanent secretary deposed to an affidavit confirming government’s position to return my farms and even explaining that His Excellency, the President of the Republic of Zimbabwe, Dr E.D (Emmerson Dambudzo) Mnangagwa and his entire Cabinet had passed a special Cabinet resolution to return my farms as they had been erroneously acquired.”
He added that the other parties held what he described as “erroneously issued” offer letters, which he argued do not constitute proof of ownership. Vingirai also noted that a separate, substantive rescission application by the same applicants had already been struck off the roll by Justice Deme under case number HCH643/25.
“You will note, Honourable Judge President, that the applicants’ rescission application was struck off the register by Justice Deme under HCH643/25, which means that Justice Mambara was only faced with a condonation application before him and not an application for Rescission,” he wrote.
“Justice Mambara granted an application that was not even before the court at all.”
Vingirai characterised the judge’s alleged conduct as unethical and damaging to public confidence in the justice system.
“I submit that this is highly unethical. It is the highest level of serious misconduct by a whole Judge. To grant an application that is not even before the court defeats the whole point of the judiciary acting as the last line of defence for citizens,” he further alleged.
Vingirai confirmed that his legal team would appeal the ruling and requested that any application for leave to appeal be heard by a different judge.
“My legal practitioner will definitely file an appeal to set aside this shameful judgment and I request that the application for leave to appeal be dealt with by a different judge, as Justice Mambara has shown highest levels of bias and corruption,” he stated.
