Source: Mutasa loses debt case | The Herald April 18, 2018
Daniel Nemukuyu Senior Court Reporter
PEOPLE First top official Mr Didymus Mutasa’s bid to save his property from auctioning over debt, has hit a snag after the High Court threw out his application for rescission of judgment. Mr Mutasa had his vehicles and household property attached last year over failure to pay legal fees to the tune of $26 900.
Mr Mutasa, the former Zanu-PF secretary for administration, has failed to pay Nyakutombwa Mugabe Legal Counsel legal fees.
The fees accrued when the politician engaged the lawyers to fight his legal battles against Zanu-PF in 2015.
A default judgment issued by the High Court resulted in the property being attached by the Sheriff.
In a bid to stop execution, Mr Mutasa and his wife Getrude, filed an application for rescission of the judgment.
Mrs Mutasa argued that some of the property belonged to her and that it was not fair to allow the Sheriff to auction it.
Mr Mutasa, on the other hand, argued that he had not been served with the court papers when the default judgment was granted. However, Justice Amy Tsanga last week dismissed the couple’s application for lack merit. To that end, the law firm have initiated the process of selling the property to recover the debt.
The property was attached and removed from Mr Mutasa’s Umwinsdale house. It was moved to LM Auctions yard in Southerton, Harare.
Household goods under attachment included: three sets of leather sofas, dining table and eight chairs, two fridges, a coffee table and stools, two water tanks, microwave, carpets, television stands, Kipor generator, DStv decoder, DVD player and two flower pots.
Mr Mutasa, together with Mr Rugare Gumbo and Mr Temba Mliswa, were in 2015 expelled from Zanu-PF for allegedly trying to topple President Mugabe.
The trio engaged the services of Nyakutombwa Mugabe Legal Counsel to fight the expulsion.
They also sought to nullify the amendment made to the revolutionary party’s constitution at the 2014 people’s congress.
After filing several applications, the trio later chickened out and dropped the challenge.
In coming up with the bill, the law firm charged the trio for all opted services rendered and for all court attendances in terms of the Law Society of Zimbabwe General Tariff of 2011.