News / Local
King Mambo in legal wrangle with spiritual advisor
03 Nov 2023 at 01:42hrs | Views
Dr. Mike Moyo, known as the King Mambo of the historical Rozvi/Lozwi Empire, is embroiled in an ongoing legal dispute with his former spiritual advisor, Mr. Bekezela Bhekimpi Nyathi.
Dr. Moyo reportedly dismissed Mr. Nyathi after a falling out that led to a division within the "royal" house. Subsequently, Dr. Moyo took the matter to court, seeking an eviction order for Mr. Nyathi from a house in Emakhandeni suburb, Bulawayo, which he had been occupying as part of his employment benefits.
In a ruling by a Bulawayo magistrate, Dr. Moyo was favored, and Mr. Nyathi was ordered to pay US$1,080 in rental arrears, as well as the legal costs associated with the case. Court documents revealed that Dr. Moyo initially allowed Mr. Nyathi to reside in the house without paying rent, while he was also receiving a monthly salary of R20,000 as per their employment contract.
According to Dr. Moyo, the agreement changed when Mr. Nyathi's role shifted from full-time to part-time, leading to a monthly rent agreement of US$100 starting from February 2022. Later, Dr. Moyo increased the rent to US$120, which did not sit well with Mr. Nyathi. This disagreement prompted Dr. Moyo to serve Mr. Nyathi with an eviction notice in August of the previous year.
Mr. Nyathi admitted to making a rental payment in November 2022 but claimed he only did so under protest. He argued that the reason he refused to vacate the premises was because Dr. Moyo owed him money.
Dissatisfied with the magistrate's decision, Mr. Nyathi filed an appeal with the High Court to challenge the judgment, with Dr. Moyo listed as the respondent. In his appeal, Mr. Nyathi contended that the initial agreement between the parties was an employment contract, not a landlord-tenant relationship. He argued that the lower court lacked jurisdiction to address labor matters and claimed that the outstanding payment issue was pending in another forum.
Mr. Nyathi also criticized the magistrate's handling of the case, alleging that it erred in fact and law. He argued that there was no evidence to support the claim that their contractual agreement had transitioned from employment to a rental arrangement. He further objected to the higher scale of costs awarded by the magistrate, emphasizing that the primary issue was related to his termination from employment, not the violation of a nonexistent rental agreement.
Dr. Moyo reportedly dismissed Mr. Nyathi after a falling out that led to a division within the "royal" house. Subsequently, Dr. Moyo took the matter to court, seeking an eviction order for Mr. Nyathi from a house in Emakhandeni suburb, Bulawayo, which he had been occupying as part of his employment benefits.
In a ruling by a Bulawayo magistrate, Dr. Moyo was favored, and Mr. Nyathi was ordered to pay US$1,080 in rental arrears, as well as the legal costs associated with the case. Court documents revealed that Dr. Moyo initially allowed Mr. Nyathi to reside in the house without paying rent, while he was also receiving a monthly salary of R20,000 as per their employment contract.
According to Dr. Moyo, the agreement changed when Mr. Nyathi's role shifted from full-time to part-time, leading to a monthly rent agreement of US$100 starting from February 2022. Later, Dr. Moyo increased the rent to US$120, which did not sit well with Mr. Nyathi. This disagreement prompted Dr. Moyo to serve Mr. Nyathi with an eviction notice in August of the previous year.
Mr. Nyathi admitted to making a rental payment in November 2022 but claimed he only did so under protest. He argued that the reason he refused to vacate the premises was because Dr. Moyo owed him money.
Dissatisfied with the magistrate's decision, Mr. Nyathi filed an appeal with the High Court to challenge the judgment, with Dr. Moyo listed as the respondent. In his appeal, Mr. Nyathi contended that the initial agreement between the parties was an employment contract, not a landlord-tenant relationship. He argued that the lower court lacked jurisdiction to address labor matters and claimed that the outstanding payment issue was pending in another forum.
Mr. Nyathi also criticized the magistrate's handling of the case, alleging that it erred in fact and law. He argued that there was no evidence to support the claim that their contractual agreement had transitioned from employment to a rental arrangement. He further objected to the higher scale of costs awarded by the magistrate, emphasizing that the primary issue was related to his termination from employment, not the violation of a nonexistent rental agreement.
Source - The Chronicle
