THE High Court has ordered former chief executive officer of the National Biotechnology Authority of Zimbabwe (NBAZ) Jonathan Mufandaedza to return a luxurious Land Rover vehicle, seven phones, DStv decoders and several items he was given by the employer during the subsistence of his tenure.
NBAZ approached the High Court after Mufandaedza refused to surrender the property to the company saying it was now his after the termination of his contract.
Mufandaedza was relieved of his duties on April 2, 2019.
According to the court documents, sometime in March 2013, NBAZ engaged Mufandaedza as the chief executive officer on a contract of fixed term duration of five years.
The contract provided him possession and use of a company motor vehicle, a Land Rover Discovery 6 and at all material times, during the subsistence of the employment contract.
The ownership of the said vehicle remained with NBAZ, and at no point was it transferred to Mufandaedza.
Mufandaedza’s contract of employment was terminated following serious charges of misconduct including abuse of office, taking fuel in excess of his entitlement.
The alleged misconduct also included taking allowances for trips to and from his children’s school in Masvingo, failing to account for foreign currency taken for foreign trips and other similar acts of gross misconduct.
NBAZ submitted that despite demanding the items, Mufandaedza did not return them.
On the issue of ownership of the property in question, Mufandaedza submitted that he purchased the motor vehicle and the cellphones belonged to him.
Former High Court judge Justice Webster Chinamhora said the documents before him showed that the ownership of the motor vehicle did not pass to Mufandaedza, adding that NBAZ remained the owner of the motor vehicle to date.
“The respondent’s contention that he has or had the right to purchase does not in any way interfere with the fact that as this matter is being litigated, ownership vests in the applicant,” Chinamhora said.
“The fact that there exists the right of first refusal is not synonymous with an obligation on the owner to sell the property.
“In my view, the ownership of the vehicle and the other gadgets remained vested in the applicant. I, therefore, agree with the applicant’s argument that by ceasing to be an employee of the applicant, the respondent’s possession and use of the gadgets also ceased unless they had been offered to the respondent to purchase.”
The former judge said it was not in dispute that Mufandaedza was the chief executive officer of NBAZ and that at the time he left his employ, he was not given an offer to purchase the said motor vehicle.
“It is clear from the above that the respondent has no right to retain the property subject of this application, and that the applicant has the right to vindicate and claim back the property,” Chinamhora said.
“The defences raised by the respondent are clearly frivolous and simply meant to waste the court’s time. The respondent only sought to flog a dead horse at the expense of the applicant who had to fund this application.
“In the result, the application be and is hereby granted and the respondent is ordered to return to the applicant the following property, namely: motor vehicle, Land Rover Discovery 6, and all the property listed to this order.”