News / Local
Fadzayi Mahere v Edmund Kudzayi - Plea to set aside proceedings
14 hrs ago | Views
Return correspondence to the address on record (Ref: .H4531/22).
High Court of Zimbabwe
Civil Division
Mapondera Building
Corner 3rd Street & Samora Machel Avenue
P.O. Box 870,
Causeway
Harare,
Zimbabwe
March 5, 2025
ATTENTION OF: The Honourable Justice Wamambo J
RE: FADZAYI MAHERE v. EDMUND KUDZAYI - PLEA TO SET ASIDE PROCEEDINGS AB INITIO DUE TO FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION AND PERJURY
My Lord,
I approach this Honourable Court with the utmost deference but also with unequivocal alarm at the deliberate misrepresentations- amounting to perjury - committed by the Applicant, Advocate Fadzayi Mahere. These falsehoods have twice resulted in the improper revival of a case that was lawfully struck off, threatening to propel the parties towards trial on a manifestly fraudulent basis. The gravity of this situation compels me to seek Your Lordship's immediate intervention to prevent this brazen attempt to subvert the integrity of this Court.
I. A Chronology of Deceit: Twice Resuscitated, Twice Tainted
The history of this case is marked by repeated attempts by the Applicant to undermine due process, culminating in an imminent trial despite a foundation irreparably tainted by deliberate falsehoods:
1. Initial Striking Off and Fraudulent Resuscitation (2024)
This matter was lawfully struck off after two years of complete inaction by the Applicant. In an effort to resurrect this dormant case, the Applicant filed an application for condonation, falsely asserting that the matter was "ripe for set-down" and merely awaiting a pre-trial conference date at the time it was deemed abandoned. This misrepresentation was intentional and of profound consequence.
• It suggested that all requisite procedural steps had been diligently completed.
• However, as Your Lordship is well aware, such a claim necessitates strict compliance with Rule 49 of the High Court Rules, 2021. This includes a formal application for a pre-trial conference, accompanied by a documented record of compliance- documentation that, conspicuously, does not exist. Its absence is irrefutable evidence of fabrication.
2. Evasion and Stonewalling
When I, as the Defendant, challenged this blatant misrepresentation and demanded details of the phantom pre-trial conference from the Applicant's legal representatives, my inquiries were not merely ignored but met with calculated silence and veiled threats of punitive costs. Such deliberate evasiveness is not the conduct of a party acting in good faith; rather, it is the conduct of one who recognises that an honest response would be fatal to their position. The refusal to engage substantively is, in itself, an admission- an implicit recognition that to answer truthfully would be to confess to an act so foundationally corrupt that it renders these proceedings untenable.
It is imperative, My Lord, to characterise this deception accurately. This is not a minor violation, such as a motorist stopped for a traffic infraction who might reasonably expect to be let off with a warning. Rather, it is akin to a police officer stumbling upon a murder in progress- an act so egregious, so fundamentally incompatible with justice, that it cannot be disregarded. The integrity of this Court demands that it be confronted.
To do otherwise, My Lord, would send a dangerous message: that one may gain an advantage in litigation through outright fabrication and, once exposed, still proceed as though deception were immaterial. A Court cannot be misled into granting an order and then, upon discovering the deception, continue as though nothing has happened. To do so would forfeit the moral authority of the judicial process. If this Court, fully apprised of the deception, allows these proceedings to advance, it becomes not merely a victim of the Applicant's fraud but a willing accomplice to it.
Fraud vitiates everything. This misrepresentation is not a peripheral irregularity that can be rectified as proceedings unfold; it is the very foundation upon which this case stands. Just as one cannot build upon a collapsed foundation, this Court cannot and must not proceed with a fraudulently revived case. To permit this would not serve justice- it would subvert it.
1. Second Striking Off and a Second Deception (January 2025)
The Applicant's initial, fraudulently obtained resuscitation was short-lived. The matter was struck off once again due to the Applicant's failure to comply with the conditions upon which that resuscitation had been granted. Undeterred, and with breath-taking disregard for the Court's integrity, the Applicant filed yet another application for condonation in January 2025.
• This time, the Applicant claimed that the delays were attributable to my "concerns"- a cynical and demonstrably false attempt to portray me as the obstacle.
• In reality, my only "concern" was for the Applicant to explain the prima facie fraud underlying the initial resuscitation- a fraud she has neither acknowledged nor addressed.
2. The Orchestrated Bypass and the Silent Court
It is particularly troubling that, in her chamber application to reinstate the case, the Plaintiff asserted: "It would not have been proper in the circumstances of this case to set the matter down before engaging the respondent and resolving all the issues raised in his correspondences. I found it important to implore him to come to the table and have an understanding of the procedures of this Honourable Court and the nature of the proceedings." Yet, having secured reinstatement on this very premise, she immediately abandoned it- bypassing the engagement she had deemed necessary and proceeding straight to a pre-trial conference. In doing so, she deprived me of the very engagement she had claimed was a prerequisite, contradicting her own justification and undermining the integrity of the process. The quoted passage is striking for its almost patronising tone, as though the Applicant had suffered undue delays purely to accommodate a self-represented litigant.
In reality, the delays arose not from goodwill but from the Applicant's legal representative's refusal to engage substantively or provide a clear answer regarding which pre-trial conference was being referenced.
Although the Applicant had proposed a roundtable meeting- a proposal I accepted, as evidenced by my letter of 8 November 2024 (attached as Annexure A)- she circumvented this stage by unclear yet undoubtedly deceptive means. This allowed her to advance directly to a pre-trial conference, silencing my opportunity to challenge the foundational falsehood upon which her case now rests.
Given my poor health and the limited time available to intervene effectively, I instructed my former legal practitioner, Dr Sande, to represent me. She is well acquainted with the case - particularly the misrepresentation regarding the phantom pre-trial conference - and her affidavit confirming this is attached. My instructions were explicit:
• To raise the foundational issue of misrepresentation before Your Lordship.
• To challenge the procedural irregularity of bypassing the agreed-upon roundtable meeting- an evasion that, in my understanding, could only have been accomplished by deceiving this Court.
To my profound dismay, I learned on Monday - after the pre-trial conference had already taken place the previous Friday - that we are now proceeding to trial without this fundamental matter ever being examined. The result is an unconscionable scenario: a trial predicated on a deliberate falsehood, where a judge was misled into granting a ruling that allows the case to advance without the Plaintiff addressing the matter or the Court considering the central issue.
Moreover, as I have not yet had sight of the minutes of the pre-trial conference, I cannot determine precisely how such an outcome was allowed to materialise. It is highly improbable that the Court, having been presented with the details I instructed my legal representative to raise, would have proceeded to direct the parties to prepare for trial without due consideration. On that basis, I must conclude that:
• My instructions were not followed.
• The Court was never made aware of the critical misrepresentation that I now bring to Your Lordship's attention.
II. The Legal Implications: A Foundation of Fraud
My Lord, the legal principles at play here are fundamental. This is not a mere procedural irregularity or a minor misstep that might be excused in the interests of expediency. At its core, it is a deliberate and calculated deception - one that strikes at the very integrity of the judicial process.
What is particularly shocking is that, despite repeated opportunities to correct course, the Applicant has doubled down on this demonstrable falsehood. She was neither compelled by circumstance nor deprived of an alternative remedy. The case was struck off twice, and the proper recourse lay in issuing fresh summons - an avenue that remained open to her at all times.
Yet, rather than following this legitimate path, she chose to perpetuate the fraud with a brazen audacity that betrays neither fear of perjury nor respect for the Court she deceives.
This is not mere litigation misconduct - it is an affront to the dignity of this Honourable Court. It is the behaviour of one who treats the judicial process not as a solemn instrument of justice but as a game to be manipulated at will. The absence of hesitation, even after the fraud had been exposed, reveals a mindset wholly unbecoming of an officer of the Court. It evinces a staggering lack of seriousness - a juvenile approach to litigation where deceit is wielded not as a last resort but as a primary tactic.
However, the gravity of this deception is not merely moral or ethical - it is legal. And in law, there are no half-measures when fraud has tainted a proceeding. This Court now stands at a crossroads: it must either confront the fraud head-on or tacitly legitimise it. There is no middle ground.
1. Fraus Omnia Vitiat (Fraud Vitiates Everything)
This principle is not a rhetorical flourish - it is the immovable bedrock upon which judicial integrity rests. Fraud does more than merely compromise a legal proceeding; it annihilates it. It renders void all that follows, for nothing built upon falsehood can stand. The Applicant's misrepresentation was not peripheral; it was the very foundation upon which her purported right to proceed was fraudulently resurrected. The result is unavoidable: these proceedings are void ab initio.
2. Ex Turpi Causa Non Oritur Actio (No Action Arises from a Base Cause)
By choosing to litigate on a foundation of fraud, the Applicant has rendered her claim intrinsically invalid. A claim tainted from its root by dishonesty cannot be entertained. This Honourable Court, as the custodian of justice, cannot be used as an instrument to advance a deceitful claim. To do so would endorse the proposition that a litigant may lie their way into a favourable position and, once caught, still expect judicial indulgence. Such an outcome would be a perversion of justice.
3. Fiat Justitia Ruat Caelum (Let Justice Be Done Though the Heavens Fall)
This principle, embedded in common law, reflects the Court's duty to uphold justice absolutely, despite any inconvenience or disruption. If fraud has been perpetrated, no matter how far advanced the litigation may be, the Court must intervene. The Applicant's misrepresentation is not a trivial irregularity but a cancer upon the case itself. To allow the trial to proceed without excising this deceit would be to renounce the essence of judicial integrity.
4. Nemo Ex Dolo Suo Proprio Relevetur (No One Shall Be Relieved from Their Own Fraud)
A party who enters litigation through dishonesty must not be permitted to extricate themselves from their deception with impunity. The Applicant has acted as though the consequences of her fraud can be circumvented by persistence. Yet persistence does not cleanse corruption. One who deceives a Court cannot then plead leniency from that same institution. The Applicant appears not as one seeking equity, but with unclean hands. And in equity, as in law, a claimant with unclean hands must be denied relief.
5. Dolus Circuitu Non Purgatur (Fraud Is Not Cleansed by Circuitous Means)
Even if the Applicant were to argue that her current claims should be assessed independently of her past fraud, this maxim refutes such an absurdity. Fraud cannot be laundered by procedural manoeuvring; it does not dissolve with time or diminish through further litigation. The decisive question is whether the Applicant's claim was revived through deceit. If yes- and it is- then these proceedings cannot continue.
The Core Question
The question, My Lord, is not merely whether fraud has occurred- it clearly has - but whether the Court will tolerate it. The imperatives of justice, judicial integrity, and the rule of law itself demand that it does not.
III. A Plea for Intervention: Justice Imperilled
This situation is not a simple procedural lapse but an assault on the foundations of justice. The Applicant's actions- marked by deliberate misrepresentation and perjury- strike at the very heart of the judicial process, degrading the integrity of this Honourable Court. Such transgressions must be addressed with utmost severity.
The Sanctity of Truth in Judicial Proceedings
Truth is the cornerstone of our judicial system. Courts rely on the honesty of litigants and their counsel to administer justice. When this fundamental trust is breached, as in this case, the entire edifice of justice is imperilled. The Applicant's deliberate falsehoods, crafted to secure an unfair advantage, constitute an affront to the dignity of this Court and cannot be tolerated.
In United States v. Throckmorton, the U.S. Supreme Court recognised "the general doctrine that fraud vitiates the most solemn contracts, documents, and even judgments." This ruling underscores the paramount importance of truthfulness in judicial proceedings and affirms the Court's duty to reject any gains obtained through deceit. Allowing the Applicant to benefit from perjury would set a dangerous precedent, emboldening others to manipulate judicial processes and eroding public confidence in the administration of justice.
Perjury: As Easy as Eating Sadza
Particularly alarming is the Applicant's flagrant disregard for truth and professional ethics. Upon learning of my intention to challenge the case's foundation, the Applicant instructed her lawyers to threaten me with increased costs, implying that any challenge would be futile. Initially, I suspected the Applicant might have misled her legal representatives; however, as they continued to evade my direct inquiries, it became evident they were acting in concert.
I once aspired to study law, believing it to be a noble profession practised by individuals of distinguished character. To witness a law firm persist in advancing a case after being informed of its fraudulent foundation represents a serious departure from the spirit of the law. It is not merely unethical - it is indecent.
Even more disturbing is the Applicant's brazen confidence, as though nothing will come of conduct that should ordinarily be career-ending. Perjury by an officer of the Court is no trivial matter; it has the potential to end professional livelihoods. Yet the Applicant and her legal practitioners proceed as though they possess an invincibility that places them beyond the Court's reach. Their demeanour suggests that what ought to be a grave violation is, to them, a trivial exercise- akin to casually eating sadza.
The Ethical Obligations of Legal Practitioners
As an advocate, the Applicant is held to a higher ethical standard. Her actions, however, have fallen woefully short of that mark. The deliberate misrepresentation of facts to the Court constitutes a severe breach of her professional obligations and amounts to perjury. The legal profession must uphold the highest standards of integrity, and those who violate these standards must face the consequences.
• The Applicant's conduct is not an excusable oversight but a calculated, sustained effort to deceive. From the initial false assertion that the matter was "ripe for set-down" to circumventing the roundtable meeting, she has demonstrated a blatant disregard for Court procedures and the principle of fair play. Overlooking or rewarding such behaviour would be a travesty of justice.
Relief Sought In light of the above, I implore Your Lordship to grant the following relief:
1 Immediate Enquiry
Order the Applicant to produce verifiable evidence of the application for set-down, along with the requisite supporting documentation.
2 Stay of Proceedings
Stay all further proceedings, including the scheduled trial, pending the outcome of this enquiry.
3 Sanctions Should Your Lordship find deliberate misrepresentation, refer the matter to the Law Society of Zimbabwe and the Zimbabwe Republic Police for investigation, as foundational perjury of this nature warrants criminal action.
4 Chambers Appearance
While I remain unwell, should the Court require my attendance in chambers for clarification, I will attend as needed.
Conclusion: Restoring Faith in Justice
My Lord, I am mindful of the great demands on Your Lordship's time and the burdens of a busy Court. I apologise for the length of this application, but the potential miscarriage of justice at hand is so grave that full disclosure is essential. This is not merely about procedural technicalities- it goes to the very soul of justice.
I trust that once the Applicant's deliberate and repeated deceit is laid bare, Your Lordship will act decisively to uphold the Court's integrity, preserve the sanctity of the judicial process, and renew public faith in justice. That knowing smile of justice served, My Lord, is a beacon of hope in a world often overshadowed by darkness. It is that beacon I earnestly seek.
Yours faithfully,
EDMUND KUDZAYI Defendant (Self-Represented)
Annexures
Annexure A: Letter to Mr Harrison Nkomo, dated 8 November 2024, confirming my agreement to a roundtable meeting.
Annexure B: Affidavit of Dr Sande, confirming that no pre-trial conference was ever attended.
Annexure C: Screenshots of WhatsApp instructions sent to Dr Sande, providing direct evidence of my instructions to raise the foundational misrepresentation and procedural anomalies in these proceedings.
CC:
• The Registrar, High Court of Zimbabwe
• Mhishi Nkomo Legal Practice Sande Legal Practice Law Society of Zimbabwe Judicial Service Commission Zimbabwe Human Rights Commission
High Court of Zimbabwe
Civil Division
Mapondera Building
Corner 3rd Street & Samora Machel Avenue
P.O. Box 870,
Causeway
Harare,
Zimbabwe
March 5, 2025
ATTENTION OF: The Honourable Justice Wamambo J
RE: FADZAYI MAHERE v. EDMUND KUDZAYI - PLEA TO SET ASIDE PROCEEDINGS AB INITIO DUE TO FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION AND PERJURY
My Lord,
I approach this Honourable Court with the utmost deference but also with unequivocal alarm at the deliberate misrepresentations- amounting to perjury - committed by the Applicant, Advocate Fadzayi Mahere. These falsehoods have twice resulted in the improper revival of a case that was lawfully struck off, threatening to propel the parties towards trial on a manifestly fraudulent basis. The gravity of this situation compels me to seek Your Lordship's immediate intervention to prevent this brazen attempt to subvert the integrity of this Court.
I. A Chronology of Deceit: Twice Resuscitated, Twice Tainted
The history of this case is marked by repeated attempts by the Applicant to undermine due process, culminating in an imminent trial despite a foundation irreparably tainted by deliberate falsehoods:
1. Initial Striking Off and Fraudulent Resuscitation (2024)
This matter was lawfully struck off after two years of complete inaction by the Applicant. In an effort to resurrect this dormant case, the Applicant filed an application for condonation, falsely asserting that the matter was "ripe for set-down" and merely awaiting a pre-trial conference date at the time it was deemed abandoned. This misrepresentation was intentional and of profound consequence.
• It suggested that all requisite procedural steps had been diligently completed.
• However, as Your Lordship is well aware, such a claim necessitates strict compliance with Rule 49 of the High Court Rules, 2021. This includes a formal application for a pre-trial conference, accompanied by a documented record of compliance- documentation that, conspicuously, does not exist. Its absence is irrefutable evidence of fabrication.
2. Evasion and Stonewalling
When I, as the Defendant, challenged this blatant misrepresentation and demanded details of the phantom pre-trial conference from the Applicant's legal representatives, my inquiries were not merely ignored but met with calculated silence and veiled threats of punitive costs. Such deliberate evasiveness is not the conduct of a party acting in good faith; rather, it is the conduct of one who recognises that an honest response would be fatal to their position. The refusal to engage substantively is, in itself, an admission- an implicit recognition that to answer truthfully would be to confess to an act so foundationally corrupt that it renders these proceedings untenable.
It is imperative, My Lord, to characterise this deception accurately. This is not a minor violation, such as a motorist stopped for a traffic infraction who might reasonably expect to be let off with a warning. Rather, it is akin to a police officer stumbling upon a murder in progress- an act so egregious, so fundamentally incompatible with justice, that it cannot be disregarded. The integrity of this Court demands that it be confronted.
To do otherwise, My Lord, would send a dangerous message: that one may gain an advantage in litigation through outright fabrication and, once exposed, still proceed as though deception were immaterial. A Court cannot be misled into granting an order and then, upon discovering the deception, continue as though nothing has happened. To do so would forfeit the moral authority of the judicial process. If this Court, fully apprised of the deception, allows these proceedings to advance, it becomes not merely a victim of the Applicant's fraud but a willing accomplice to it.
Fraud vitiates everything. This misrepresentation is not a peripheral irregularity that can be rectified as proceedings unfold; it is the very foundation upon which this case stands. Just as one cannot build upon a collapsed foundation, this Court cannot and must not proceed with a fraudulently revived case. To permit this would not serve justice- it would subvert it.
1. Second Striking Off and a Second Deception (January 2025)
The Applicant's initial, fraudulently obtained resuscitation was short-lived. The matter was struck off once again due to the Applicant's failure to comply with the conditions upon which that resuscitation had been granted. Undeterred, and with breath-taking disregard for the Court's integrity, the Applicant filed yet another application for condonation in January 2025.
• This time, the Applicant claimed that the delays were attributable to my "concerns"- a cynical and demonstrably false attempt to portray me as the obstacle.
• In reality, my only "concern" was for the Applicant to explain the prima facie fraud underlying the initial resuscitation- a fraud she has neither acknowledged nor addressed.
2. The Orchestrated Bypass and the Silent Court
It is particularly troubling that, in her chamber application to reinstate the case, the Plaintiff asserted: "It would not have been proper in the circumstances of this case to set the matter down before engaging the respondent and resolving all the issues raised in his correspondences. I found it important to implore him to come to the table and have an understanding of the procedures of this Honourable Court and the nature of the proceedings." Yet, having secured reinstatement on this very premise, she immediately abandoned it- bypassing the engagement she had deemed necessary and proceeding straight to a pre-trial conference. In doing so, she deprived me of the very engagement she had claimed was a prerequisite, contradicting her own justification and undermining the integrity of the process. The quoted passage is striking for its almost patronising tone, as though the Applicant had suffered undue delays purely to accommodate a self-represented litigant.
In reality, the delays arose not from goodwill but from the Applicant's legal representative's refusal to engage substantively or provide a clear answer regarding which pre-trial conference was being referenced.
Although the Applicant had proposed a roundtable meeting- a proposal I accepted, as evidenced by my letter of 8 November 2024 (attached as Annexure A)- she circumvented this stage by unclear yet undoubtedly deceptive means. This allowed her to advance directly to a pre-trial conference, silencing my opportunity to challenge the foundational falsehood upon which her case now rests.
Given my poor health and the limited time available to intervene effectively, I instructed my former legal practitioner, Dr Sande, to represent me. She is well acquainted with the case - particularly the misrepresentation regarding the phantom pre-trial conference - and her affidavit confirming this is attached. My instructions were explicit:
• To raise the foundational issue of misrepresentation before Your Lordship.
• To challenge the procedural irregularity of bypassing the agreed-upon roundtable meeting- an evasion that, in my understanding, could only have been accomplished by deceiving this Court.
To my profound dismay, I learned on Monday - after the pre-trial conference had already taken place the previous Friday - that we are now proceeding to trial without this fundamental matter ever being examined. The result is an unconscionable scenario: a trial predicated on a deliberate falsehood, where a judge was misled into granting a ruling that allows the case to advance without the Plaintiff addressing the matter or the Court considering the central issue.
Moreover, as I have not yet had sight of the minutes of the pre-trial conference, I cannot determine precisely how such an outcome was allowed to materialise. It is highly improbable that the Court, having been presented with the details I instructed my legal representative to raise, would have proceeded to direct the parties to prepare for trial without due consideration. On that basis, I must conclude that:
• My instructions were not followed.
• The Court was never made aware of the critical misrepresentation that I now bring to Your Lordship's attention.
II. The Legal Implications: A Foundation of Fraud
My Lord, the legal principles at play here are fundamental. This is not a mere procedural irregularity or a minor misstep that might be excused in the interests of expediency. At its core, it is a deliberate and calculated deception - one that strikes at the very integrity of the judicial process.
What is particularly shocking is that, despite repeated opportunities to correct course, the Applicant has doubled down on this demonstrable falsehood. She was neither compelled by circumstance nor deprived of an alternative remedy. The case was struck off twice, and the proper recourse lay in issuing fresh summons - an avenue that remained open to her at all times.
Yet, rather than following this legitimate path, she chose to perpetuate the fraud with a brazen audacity that betrays neither fear of perjury nor respect for the Court she deceives.
This is not mere litigation misconduct - it is an affront to the dignity of this Honourable Court. It is the behaviour of one who treats the judicial process not as a solemn instrument of justice but as a game to be manipulated at will. The absence of hesitation, even after the fraud had been exposed, reveals a mindset wholly unbecoming of an officer of the Court. It evinces a staggering lack of seriousness - a juvenile approach to litigation where deceit is wielded not as a last resort but as a primary tactic.
However, the gravity of this deception is not merely moral or ethical - it is legal. And in law, there are no half-measures when fraud has tainted a proceeding. This Court now stands at a crossroads: it must either confront the fraud head-on or tacitly legitimise it. There is no middle ground.
This principle is not a rhetorical flourish - it is the immovable bedrock upon which judicial integrity rests. Fraud does more than merely compromise a legal proceeding; it annihilates it. It renders void all that follows, for nothing built upon falsehood can stand. The Applicant's misrepresentation was not peripheral; it was the very foundation upon which her purported right to proceed was fraudulently resurrected. The result is unavoidable: these proceedings are void ab initio.
2. Ex Turpi Causa Non Oritur Actio (No Action Arises from a Base Cause)
By choosing to litigate on a foundation of fraud, the Applicant has rendered her claim intrinsically invalid. A claim tainted from its root by dishonesty cannot be entertained. This Honourable Court, as the custodian of justice, cannot be used as an instrument to advance a deceitful claim. To do so would endorse the proposition that a litigant may lie their way into a favourable position and, once caught, still expect judicial indulgence. Such an outcome would be a perversion of justice.
3. Fiat Justitia Ruat Caelum (Let Justice Be Done Though the Heavens Fall)
This principle, embedded in common law, reflects the Court's duty to uphold justice absolutely, despite any inconvenience or disruption. If fraud has been perpetrated, no matter how far advanced the litigation may be, the Court must intervene. The Applicant's misrepresentation is not a trivial irregularity but a cancer upon the case itself. To allow the trial to proceed without excising this deceit would be to renounce the essence of judicial integrity.
4. Nemo Ex Dolo Suo Proprio Relevetur (No One Shall Be Relieved from Their Own Fraud)
A party who enters litigation through dishonesty must not be permitted to extricate themselves from their deception with impunity. The Applicant has acted as though the consequences of her fraud can be circumvented by persistence. Yet persistence does not cleanse corruption. One who deceives a Court cannot then plead leniency from that same institution. The Applicant appears not as one seeking equity, but with unclean hands. And in equity, as in law, a claimant with unclean hands must be denied relief.
5. Dolus Circuitu Non Purgatur (Fraud Is Not Cleansed by Circuitous Means)
Even if the Applicant were to argue that her current claims should be assessed independently of her past fraud, this maxim refutes such an absurdity. Fraud cannot be laundered by procedural manoeuvring; it does not dissolve with time or diminish through further litigation. The decisive question is whether the Applicant's claim was revived through deceit. If yes- and it is- then these proceedings cannot continue.
The Core Question
The question, My Lord, is not merely whether fraud has occurred- it clearly has - but whether the Court will tolerate it. The imperatives of justice, judicial integrity, and the rule of law itself demand that it does not.
III. A Plea for Intervention: Justice Imperilled
This situation is not a simple procedural lapse but an assault on the foundations of justice. The Applicant's actions- marked by deliberate misrepresentation and perjury- strike at the very heart of the judicial process, degrading the integrity of this Honourable Court. Such transgressions must be addressed with utmost severity.
The Sanctity of Truth in Judicial Proceedings
Truth is the cornerstone of our judicial system. Courts rely on the honesty of litigants and their counsel to administer justice. When this fundamental trust is breached, as in this case, the entire edifice of justice is imperilled. The Applicant's deliberate falsehoods, crafted to secure an unfair advantage, constitute an affront to the dignity of this Court and cannot be tolerated.
In United States v. Throckmorton, the U.S. Supreme Court recognised "the general doctrine that fraud vitiates the most solemn contracts, documents, and even judgments." This ruling underscores the paramount importance of truthfulness in judicial proceedings and affirms the Court's duty to reject any gains obtained through deceit. Allowing the Applicant to benefit from perjury would set a dangerous precedent, emboldening others to manipulate judicial processes and eroding public confidence in the administration of justice.
Perjury: As Easy as Eating Sadza
Particularly alarming is the Applicant's flagrant disregard for truth and professional ethics. Upon learning of my intention to challenge the case's foundation, the Applicant instructed her lawyers to threaten me with increased costs, implying that any challenge would be futile. Initially, I suspected the Applicant might have misled her legal representatives; however, as they continued to evade my direct inquiries, it became evident they were acting in concert.
I once aspired to study law, believing it to be a noble profession practised by individuals of distinguished character. To witness a law firm persist in advancing a case after being informed of its fraudulent foundation represents a serious departure from the spirit of the law. It is not merely unethical - it is indecent.
Even more disturbing is the Applicant's brazen confidence, as though nothing will come of conduct that should ordinarily be career-ending. Perjury by an officer of the Court is no trivial matter; it has the potential to end professional livelihoods. Yet the Applicant and her legal practitioners proceed as though they possess an invincibility that places them beyond the Court's reach. Their demeanour suggests that what ought to be a grave violation is, to them, a trivial exercise- akin to casually eating sadza.
The Ethical Obligations of Legal Practitioners
As an advocate, the Applicant is held to a higher ethical standard. Her actions, however, have fallen woefully short of that mark. The deliberate misrepresentation of facts to the Court constitutes a severe breach of her professional obligations and amounts to perjury. The legal profession must uphold the highest standards of integrity, and those who violate these standards must face the consequences.
• The Applicant's conduct is not an excusable oversight but a calculated, sustained effort to deceive. From the initial false assertion that the matter was "ripe for set-down" to circumventing the roundtable meeting, she has demonstrated a blatant disregard for Court procedures and the principle of fair play. Overlooking or rewarding such behaviour would be a travesty of justice.
Relief Sought In light of the above, I implore Your Lordship to grant the following relief:
1 Immediate Enquiry
Order the Applicant to produce verifiable evidence of the application for set-down, along with the requisite supporting documentation.
2 Stay of Proceedings
Stay all further proceedings, including the scheduled trial, pending the outcome of this enquiry.
3 Sanctions Should Your Lordship find deliberate misrepresentation, refer the matter to the Law Society of Zimbabwe and the Zimbabwe Republic Police for investigation, as foundational perjury of this nature warrants criminal action.
4 Chambers Appearance
While I remain unwell, should the Court require my attendance in chambers for clarification, I will attend as needed.
Conclusion: Restoring Faith in Justice
My Lord, I am mindful of the great demands on Your Lordship's time and the burdens of a busy Court. I apologise for the length of this application, but the potential miscarriage of justice at hand is so grave that full disclosure is essential. This is not merely about procedural technicalities- it goes to the very soul of justice.
I trust that once the Applicant's deliberate and repeated deceit is laid bare, Your Lordship will act decisively to uphold the Court's integrity, preserve the sanctity of the judicial process, and renew public faith in justice. That knowing smile of justice served, My Lord, is a beacon of hope in a world often overshadowed by darkness. It is that beacon I earnestly seek.
Yours faithfully,
EDMUND KUDZAYI Defendant (Self-Represented)
Annexures
Annexure A: Letter to Mr Harrison Nkomo, dated 8 November 2024, confirming my agreement to a roundtable meeting.
Annexure B: Affidavit of Dr Sande, confirming that no pre-trial conference was ever attended.
Annexure C: Screenshots of WhatsApp instructions sent to Dr Sande, providing direct evidence of my instructions to raise the foundational misrepresentation and procedural anomalies in these proceedings.
CC:
• The Registrar, High Court of Zimbabwe
• Mhishi Nkomo Legal Practice Sande Legal Practice Law Society of Zimbabwe Judicial Service Commission Zimbabwe Human Rights Commission
Source - x
