Perjury Accused Pokugara Properties Employee Back In Court
13 September 2021
Share

By A Correspondent| Pokugara Properties employee Michael John Van Blerk is back in court today to answer to charges of perjury and malicious damage to property.

Van Blerk is accused of destroying land developer George Katsimberis’ show house at Teviotdale and Whitwell Road in Borrowdale without a court order as required by law.

He is jointly charged together with City of Harare officials Hosiah Chisango, Engineer Zvenyika Chawatama, Samuel Nyabezi and Last Chaitezvi as well as his colleague from Pokugara Properties Mandla Marlone Ndebele.

Pokugara Properties owner Kenneth Raydon Sharpe is reportedly at large.

According to the state, Van Blerk lied in an affidavit that the show house in question was built without approved building plans by the City of Harare.

“In that on the 2nd of October 2018 and at High Court of Zimbabwe Civil Division, Harare, MICHAEL JOHN VAN BLERK in his personal capacity and as well as the Managing Director representative of 2nd accused jointly filed a false written statement in case HC8943/18 knowingly or realizing that there was a real risk or possibility that the statement was false that is to say one or both of accused persons tendered an affidavit sworn to by 1st accused in case HC8943/18 and lied in that affidavit that the show house in question was built without approved building plan by City of Harare yet in actual fact the copy of the said plan shows that it was approved by City of Harare,” reads part of the state papers.

“And further one or both of accused person filed a false written statement in case HC 8943/18 knowingly or realizing that there was a real risk or possibility that the statement was false that is to say the two accused persons tendered an affidavit sworn to by 1st accused in case HC 8943/18 and lied that complainant George Katsimberis had constructed a show house on stand 10 instead of stand 9 yet in fact the show house was built on stand 9 and also lied in the same affidavit that complainant applied for a building plan under plan MP6813/17 for approval of building plan for stand 9 when in actual fact it was one or both of accused person who made such an application for approval of building plan for stand 8,” further reads the state outline.