The Constitutional Court Monday struck off the roll, an application by businessman Farai Matsika who was appealing a Supreme Court ruling as the legal battle for control of Croco Motors rages on.
Last year, the Supreme Court declined his appeal against a ruling of the same court for lack of jurisdiction.
The Doves and Faramatsi owner is fighting for control of Croco Holdings with his cousin Moses Chingwena.
On Monday, the Constitutional Court struck off his application, ruling that it was legally defective to hear his matter when the full Supreme Court ruling is not yet available.
The matter was struck off the roll with consent from both partners.
Matsika has been tussling Chingwena for years over company ownership claiming he spent over two decades building the empire.
Last year, Supreme Court judges, Elizabeth Gwaunza, Joseph Musakwa and Hlekani Mwayera declined jurisdiction prompting Matsika to file a ConCourt appeal.
In the previous Supreme Court hearing, court ruled that Matsika tried to illegally grab ownership of Croco Holdings from the company’s rightful owner, Chingwena.
Another judge, Justice Chinembiri Bhunu, in his judgment said High Court judge, Owen Tagu could not be faulted for coming up with that ruling since Matsika had put nothing before the courts to support his ownership claims.
Justice Bhunu ruled it was Matsika’s obligation to convince the court, but it was clear he submitted doctored documents which made it difficult for both courts to believe him.
At the High Court, Justice Owen Tagu had accused him of trying to grab the company through the back door.
Justice Bhunu also blasted Matsika and his lawyers for incompetence.
“In the final analysis, no-fault or misdirection can be laid at the learned judge a quo’s door in his treatment of the substantive issues and verdict,” Justice Bhunu said.
“In view of Matsika’s deplorable, unbecoming behaviour in manufacturing fraudulent documents to deceive the court, costs at the punitive scale were eminently deserved in the court a quo.
“In the current proceedings before me, there is no reason for departure from the general rule that costs follow the result.
“In the final analysis, I hold that the appellants have no reasonable prospects of success on appeal.
“It is accordingly ordered that the application for condonation of late noting of appeal and extension of time within which to make an appeal be and is hereby dismissed with costs.
“This is, therefore, a proper case where the naivety of the applicants’ lawyers was properly visited on their clients as the applicants were not entirely free from blame.”
In his Supreme Court appeal, Matsika complained that Tagu had made some errors in concluding he had sought to grab the company through the back door.
Matsika sought the setting aside of the High Court ruling and demanded a forensic audit and valuation of Croco Holdings and 39 other entities.
Matsika claimed he had built the Croco business empire for 26 years while his cousin Chingwena was working at LCZ, Century Bank, and Discount House, which he added are failed companies.
Chingwena argued that Matsika failed to place before the court evidence showing how he secured the 30% stake in the vehicle sale company.
While Matsika had claimed that Phibeon Gwatidzo of Baker Tilly Gwatidzo Chartered Accountants was the shares transferring secretary in 2006, it emerged through Gwatidzo’s secretary that the accounting firm was not yet in existence at the time.
Source – ZimLive