BY TAFADZWA KACHIKO
LOCAL Government minister July Moyo has been dragged to the High Court in a case where he faces charges of illegally allocating a piece of land belonging to a Harare businesswoman to the acting Chitungwiza town clerk.
Locardia Mutero, through her lawyers Kadzere, Hungwe and Mandevere, said she was the sole and lawful owner of Stand 3195, Tynwald in Harare which was allegedly allocated to acting town clerk Evangelista Machona.
Machona and Moyo are cited as the first and second respondents respectively.
Mutero said she got exclusive rights to occupy the stand on February 1 2008 from the local Government ministry having joined the Pay for Your House Scheme in Harare in January 1999.
She was to pay an annual rental of $112 500 000 and was entitled to erect buildings to the value of not less than $50 000 000 000.
Keep Reading
- 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
However, Mutero in her application said the construction on the land in question was hindered by an alleged illegal occupation by Machona.
“Plaintiff got a housing plan produced and approved by the local authority (Harare City Council) for construction of a dwelling on the land in question. Construction has been hindered by the unlawful occupation of the land by the first defendant,” the court application reads in part.
“Sometime in 2021, plaintiff upon attending the land, observed that the gate locks had been broken and there was someone unknown to her and who without her authorisation had proceeded to take occupation of the land and commenced vegetable gardening,”
“Upon further inquiry from neighbours and from the local authority the plaintiff discovered that it was the defendant who had taken occupation of the land in question and had gone to an extent of changing rate accounts records to reflect the defendant as the owner of the property in question.”
She said several inquiries and visits to the offices of the second defendant yielded no answers as the file relating to the stand was constantly said to be missing.
“Plaintiff contends that such allocation to first defendant was unlawful, marred by fraud and therefore irregular by dint of the fact that the land had since been allocated to plaintiff.”