×
NewsDay

AMH is an independent media house free from political ties or outside influence. We have four newspapers: The Zimbabwe Independent, a business weekly published every Friday, The Standard, a weekly published every Sunday, and Southern and NewsDay, our daily newspapers. Each has an online edition.

Supreme Court upholds Wadyajena assets release

Local News
THE Supreme Court has upheld High Court judge Justice Tawanda Chitapi’s judgment ordering the Zimbabwe Anti-Corruption Commission (Zacc) to release assets, including 25 trucks, that were impounded from former Gokwe-Nembudziya legislator Justice Mayor Wadyajena two years ago.

THE Supreme Court has upheld High Court judge Justice Tawanda Chitapi’s judgment ordering the Zimbabwe Anti-Corruption Commission (Zacc) to release assets, including 25 trucks, that were impounded from former Gokwe-Nembudziya legislator Justice Mayor Wadyajena two years ago.

Justice Chitapi said Zacc should release all the property confiscated from Wadyajena after being served with the order.

Zacc confiscated the property alleging it was ill-gotten wealth before the court removed Wadyajena from remand for lack of evidence.

He was arrested together with former Cotton Company of Zimbabwe (Cottco) officials Pius Manamike and Maxmore Njanji, who were also released by the court.

They were facing fraud and money-laundering charges involving US$5 million.

Through a warrant of search and seizure, Zacc confiscated some of Wadyajena’s property which included the trucks, a Lamborghini (SUV) vehicle and a BMW X6 vehicle.

While applying for removal from remand, Wadyajena’s lawyer Oliver Marwa told the court that his clients, who are all businesspersons, were being inconvenienced by consistently coming to court when there was no progress on investigations into the case.

However, Zacc appealed to the Supreme Court saying the High Court erred when it ordered the release of Wadyajena’s assets.

According to the Supreme Court judgment, Zacc’s appeal was dismissed after the anti-graft body failed to comply with Rule 55(5) regarding payment of security costs.

“Reference is made to the civil appeal you filed on Tuesday, May 14, 2024. It is noted that you did not comply with Rule 55(5) of the Supreme Court Rules (2018) with regards to payment of security costs.

“In terms of the Sub-rule (6) of Rule 55 of the aforementioned rules, the appeal is regarded as abandoned and is hereby dismissed,” the Supreme Court judgment read.

Related Topics