Businessman Farai Matsika’s latest attempt to form an alliance with Mr Peter Chingwena, brother of his former business partner, Mr Moses Chingwena, in a bid to secure shareholding in Croco Motors, is just the latest step in what has proved a long drawn legal battle for him.
The High Court has struck the action from the court roll, accepting that the Supreme and Constitutional Courts’ rulings have closed the matter, leaving no room for resumption. Mr Matsika’s lengthy and costly legal battle has suffered multiple defeats.
The Supreme Court declared that Mr Matsika is not a shareholder in Croco Motors, citing forgery and falsehoods as the basis of his claim.
Despite this, Mr Matsika attempted to review the decision, only to be rejected. His subsequent appeal to the Constitutional Court was also unsuccessful, with the court upholding the Supreme Court’s findings and affirming that Mr Matsika’s entitlement as a shareholder is non-existent.
With all legal avenues exhausted and the courts’ rulings being definitive, it appears that Mr Matsika’s bid for Croco Motors shareholding has reached a dead end.
Despite the definitive nature of these court judgments, Mr Matsika still wants to pursue the matter further.
In the latest case, Mr Matsika had teamed up with Mr Peter Chingwena, who sued Croco Investments (Pvt) Ltd and seven other defendants including Mr Moses Chingwena and his wife Mrs Anne Marie Chingwena.
Peter and Moses Chingwena are brothers.
Mr Peter Chingwena’s declaration outlined allegations of deceit and unauthorised actio ns by his brother, Moses Chingwena regarding the ownership and operations of Croco Motors.
He accused Mr Moses Chingwena of fraudulent and unlawful actions, claiming that he was fraudulently removed from the company.
Mr Peter Chingwena insisted that he remained a shareholder of Croco Investments (Pvt) Ltd, and sought recognition of his shareholding and compensation for losses.
He also cited Mr Matsika as one of the defendants ,and one of the directors at Croco Motors.
But in his response, Mr Matsika was seemingly fighting an uphill battle regarding his involvement with Croco Motors, claiming that his appointment as a director of Croco Investments was not fraudulent, but rather lawful based on the shareholders’ agreement and articles of association.
He claimed that his dismissed claim of 30 percent shareholding in the companies is legitimate, stemming from a lawful subscription to shares.
Mr Matsika argued against Mr Peter Chingwena’s attempt to nullify his “shareholding” and disputes his removal as a director, questioning his legal authority to do so.
He contested his removal as director, doubting Mr Peter Chingwena’s legal grounds.
However, the Constitutional Court recently dismissed Mr Matsika’s application to appeal the Supreme Court’s decision against him, marking the end of a prolonged legal battle for control of Croco Motors since there is no appeal from the Supreme Court on factual and contract issues, and no appeal from the Constitutional Court on constitutional issues.
Mr Moses Chingwena and his family have already raised the preliminary points emphasising that Mr Matsika’s lengthy legal battle for Croco Motors shares hit a dead end after the Constitutional Court ruled that the Supreme Court’s decision cannot be appealed.
This development supported the Chingwena family that argued that Mr Peter Chingwena’s renewed interest in the original case was unnecessary, given the prior judgments.
After hearing counsel for all the parties, High Court Judge Justice Gibson Mandaza, last week, ruled in favour of the Chingwena family, upholding their preliminary points.
“In the result, I make the following order…the preliminary points raised by the first to fourth and sixth defendants are upheld,” he said, striking the matter off the roll, with costs of suit.
In his November 2021 ruling, Supreme Court Judge Justice Chinembiri Bhunu blasted Mr Matsika describing him as a dishonest devious person who was prepared to twist the truth to advance his nefarious cause and hit him with punitive costs.
This latest decision essentially means that Mr Matsika, listed as the fifth defendant, has no valid legal basis for claiming shares in Croco Motors, as the Supreme Court, Constitutional Court, and High Court have already resolved the issue of his shareholding and Mr Moses Chingwena is the sole shareholder.
In light of this ruling, Mr Peter Chingwena’s request to declare the allotment of shares from Mr Matsika to Croco Holdings (Pvt) Ltd a nullity is considered incompetent.
All the parties hired high profile lawyers to argue the matter. Adv Garikayi Sithole represented Mr Peter Chingwena.
Adv Thabani Mpofu acted for Croco Holdings, Mr Moses Chingwena and his wife, while Professor Lovemore Madhuku, along with Mr Itayi Ndudzo, argued the matter for Mr Matsika.
Adv Thembinkosi Magwaliba and Adv David Ochieng, represented Mr Moses Chingwena’s two sons, Wesley and Wayne.
Source: Herald