11 March 2018
Spread the love

By Staff Reporter| United Family Church International leader Emmanuel Makandiwa who two weeks ago filed an application seeking to dismiss the lawsuit against him for fraud just after claiming that he is above the courts, has received a response to his latest application.

Makandiwa is being sued for among other things coordinating the fraudulent services of a fake lawyer, Mr Tichaona Mawere and therewith causing the loss of millions of dollars. The complainants are Mr and Mrs Upenyu and Blessing Mashangwa.

Mr Mawere, was exposed by the Law Society last year on for practicing illegally and also defrauding other customers.

Last year the preacher, (Makandiwa) lost the case in which he was applying for dismissal while declaring that he is above the courts. He said he has ecclesistical powers. Ruling on the case, Justice Mangota said to Makandiwa the case was air tight. Justice Mangota dismissed Makandiwa’s application on the basis of both fact and merit.

Makandiwa has not opposed that ruling. Following his defeat, he has instead opened a new case in which he is now applying for dismissal of the lawsuit using another method and an entirely new argument in which he says among other things that Mr Tichaona Mawere was never the plaintiffs’ lawyer as raised in the suit.

The plaintiffs Mr Upenyu Mashangwa and his wife, Blessing have since filed an opposing affidavit against Makandiwa in which they seek, “for the dismissal of the (Makandiwa’s) application with costs on the higher scale. such costs being payable dollar for dollar.” –

Part of the affidavit reads:

“With those preliminary remarks. I wish to take certain points in limine…Matter passed in rein iudicatam.

“The substance of this application is one which this court has already settled without any appeal being brought by the applicants against the court’s determination.


“Whilst applicants claim that we have no valid claim, this court has issued a contrary judgment which the applicants have not questioned. Applicants are effectively asking a judge of this court to review a judgment issued by a judge of parallel jurisdiction. It is disgracefully insular and is an act of unwarranted impertinence of the applicants to make that request. I am advised that the matter is passed in rem judicatam and the exercise of function by this court has already ceased. It seems applicants are not used to taking the rough. I am hardly surprised, they run a little kingdom.

“I am advised that there is something in the nature of an estoppel which precludes applicants from seeking this kind of relief in light of the germane observations made by MANGOTA J in his judgment. It is therefore incompetent for this application to be brought. ”  More follows …