Plaintiff Sithule Tshuma, Karen Kumalo, and Four Others Fail to Attend High Court; Judge Christopher Banda Dube Grants Ruling in Favor of Defendants Dumisani Moyo and Edna Moyo.
By Nancy Nhuku | In yesterday’s development at the High Court in Zimbabwe, plaintiff Sithule Tshuma, Karen Kumalo, and four other individuals failed to appear for their scheduled court hearing, resulting in a ruling in favor of the defendants, Mr. and Mrs. Moyo. Judge Christopher Banda Dube presided over the case and made the decision in light of the plaintiffs’ absence.
The lawsuit, which involved a dispute between the plaintiffs and the Moyos, had been ongoing for several years. The plaintiffs had accused Mr. and Mrs. Moyo of breaching a contractual agreement related to a property transaction case HC640/20. The defendants, however, have always denied the allegations.
Despite being duly informed of the court hearing well in advance, plaintiffs Sithule Tshuma, Karen Kumalo, Nhamo Nyathi, Thembeka C Moyo, Sinikiwe Dube and Angeline Ndlovu did not appear before Judge Dube Banda. Interested parties, local and abroad were astonished to learn that all six plaintiffs did not attend the court. This absence raised questions about their commitment to pursuing the legal proceedings and undermined their position in the case.
Consequently, after considering the evidence and arguments presented by the defendants, Judge Dube Banda appears made the ruling in favor of Mr. and Mrs. Moyo. The judge must have deemed the evidence in support of the defendants’ case to be compelling and found no reason to delay further or dismiss the judgment due to the plaintiffs’ lack of evidence presumably.
The ruling in favor of the Moyos indicates that the court has accepted the defense’s arguments and found no legal basis for the claims made by Sithule Tshuma, Karen Kumalo, and the four others. As a result, the defendants are absolved of any liability and may pursue legal recourse to recover any damages or losses incurred throughout the course of the litigation.
It remains unclear why the plaintiffs failed to attend the court hearing, and their absence may have an impact on their ability to challenge the ruling or seek an appeal. Legal experts suggest that their non-appearance could have serious repercussions for their case, potentially limiting their options for future legal action.
This is happening at a time when a mega lawsuit is looming over Qoki Zindlovukazi (Sithule Tshuma and Karen Kumalo’s private company) and their lawyer Mr Zibusiso Charles Ncube as alleged ‘seller’, Mr Hazrine Hapazari’s name is not on 166 hectares Farm The Remaining Extent of Lower Nondwene Title Deed (1791/90) and Qoki Title Deed(220/2021). Qoki appears to have taken the ‘fake’ Title Deed (as referd to by Qoki investors), directly from Mr and Mrs Manfred Barnett. Contrary to this, the Qoki Title Deed is missing at the Title Deed office to date, sometime in 2022, the Bulawayo Deed Office had confirmed to the investors Lawyer that the Deed was unavailable due to incomplete conveyancing issues. The Title Deed in question also covers the 50 hectares Qoki Hotel and Golf Course as Mr Hapazari is the same ‘seller’.
The absence of Sithule Tshuma, Karen Kumalo, and the four other plaintiffs at the High Court hearing has raised speculation and left observers questioning their commitment to the legal process. As the news of this ruling spreads, it serves as a reminder of the importance of attending court proceedings and actively participating in the justice system to ensure a fair and just resolution to legal disputes.