Latest News Editor's Choice


News / National

Judge refuse Roy Bennett's request to disclose number of farms in court

by Staff reporter
18 Feb 2012 at 22:33hrs | Views
Judge Chinembiri Bhunu has rejected a request by exiled Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) treasurer Roy Bennett to disclose the number of farms he owns in court.

Bennett's lawyer, Beatrice Mtetwa, had asked high court judge Bhunu to disclose all the farms that he had laid claim to over the past 10 years when President Robert Mugabe's previous administration began its land seizures.

The request was made to enable Bennett to plead to the judge's $1-million defamation suit against the former Chimanimani legislator.

Mtetwa asked Bhunu to reveal the name and location of the current farms that he occupies, the duration of occupation of each farm, and whether previous farm owners who were dispossessed of their farms were fully compensated.

Bhunu is claiming $1-million from Bennett for alleged defamation arising from an interview with the Guardian newspaper (United Kingdom) before his acquittal on insurgency charges.

Bhunu, who presided over Bennett's trial, says Bennett told Guardian reporter, David Smith, that he would not get a fair trial because Bhunu was given a farm by the Zanu-PF administration and would therefore be biased in favour of the state.

But in response to Mtetwa's request for an inventory of his farms, Bhunu, through his lawyers Chikumbirike and Associates Legal Practitioners, refused to respond to the request and insisted that the onus is on the former commercial farmer to prove his claims.

"The defendant (Bennett) professes knowledge of the information requested. The information requested is therefore not necessary to enable the defendant to plead," reads the response to Bennett's request for further particulars.

Bennett, whose farm was seized, is now living in exile after giving up on his deputy ministerial post.

Although he was acquitted of the terrorism charges, state prosecutors have appealed against the verdict to the supreme court.

Source - timeslive