News / National
'Tsvangirai a pathological liar'
24 Oct 2017 at 06:09hrs | Views
MDC-T leader Mr Morgan Tsvangirai has been labelled a pathological liar, who professes ignorance of the fact that he is being sued by his home boy over the failed 2013 "grand coalition" against President Mugabe, when newspapers were awash with the court case since mid this year.
Mr Moreprecision Muzadzi, who was used as an emissary to engage and to mobilise opposition political parties against President Mugabe in the 2013 election, last week got a default judgment for payment of $7 800 and a Nissan NP200 he had been promised by Mr Tsvangirai for services rendered.
Mr Tsvangirai, his brother Manasa and the party's deputy chairman Mr Morgan Komichi, were also ordered to pay $50 000 as damages for the physical attack on Mr Muzadzi when he visited the political leader's Highlands home to claim his emissary fees.
Mr Muzadzi said when service was effected at Harvest House, the Sheriff of the High Court was assaulted by some thugs, a development that spread like veld fire nationally and internationally through conventional and several online media reports.
After the default judgment, Mr Tsvangirai and the two others filed an application for rescission of the default judgment on the basis that they were not aware of the suit and that the Sheriff never served them.
This was despite the fact that a report was made to the police and the MDC-T party leadership was approached during police investigations on the assault case.
In his affidavit opposing the rescission application, Mr Muzadzi said the lies by the three men bordered on contempt of court and should be dismissed.
"The application for rescission is perjured and is a plethora of lies since applicants premise their alibi on shameless falsehoods that the Sheriff of the High Court did not serve them the summons when the truth and fact of the matter is that their party thugs assaulted and battered the Sheriff as he effected the service on June 15, 2017," he said.
"Applicants have connived to commit perjury, which is an act of swearing a false oath — a crime against justice. "The court should dismiss these liars' claims with severe punitive costs as it is contempt of court in total."
Mr Muzadzi said the media coverage of the court case was so extensive and it was childish for Mr Tsvangirai and the other two to profess ignorance of the matter.
"This is sad for someone who was the Prime Minister of Zimbabwe to fabricate kindergarten lies to escape paying a youth who, by genius, organised his 2013 grand coalition," reads the opposing affidavit.
In the rescission application, Mr Tsvangirai, together with his brother Manasa and Mr Komichi, argued that they were never served with the summons and that they only learnt of the default judgment through the Press.
"I verily assert that I was never served with the summons by the respondent through the Deputy Sheriff and, therefore, had no knowledge of this claim," said Mr Tsvangirai.
He argued that the Sheriff, if he served the papers on a receptionist at Harvest House, erred because he should have served him at his home.
Mr Tsvangirai said his brother Manasa was not an MDC-T official.
Mr Komichi, it is argued, is the party's deputy chairperson, but does not stay at Harvest House.
The three argued that the default judgment was obtained fraudulently and that their prospects of success if the matter is referred to trial were high.
Mr Moreprecision Muzadzi, who was used as an emissary to engage and to mobilise opposition political parties against President Mugabe in the 2013 election, last week got a default judgment for payment of $7 800 and a Nissan NP200 he had been promised by Mr Tsvangirai for services rendered.
Mr Tsvangirai, his brother Manasa and the party's deputy chairman Mr Morgan Komichi, were also ordered to pay $50 000 as damages for the physical attack on Mr Muzadzi when he visited the political leader's Highlands home to claim his emissary fees.
Mr Muzadzi said when service was effected at Harvest House, the Sheriff of the High Court was assaulted by some thugs, a development that spread like veld fire nationally and internationally through conventional and several online media reports.
After the default judgment, Mr Tsvangirai and the two others filed an application for rescission of the default judgment on the basis that they were not aware of the suit and that the Sheriff never served them.
This was despite the fact that a report was made to the police and the MDC-T party leadership was approached during police investigations on the assault case.
In his affidavit opposing the rescission application, Mr Muzadzi said the lies by the three men bordered on contempt of court and should be dismissed.
"The application for rescission is perjured and is a plethora of lies since applicants premise their alibi on shameless falsehoods that the Sheriff of the High Court did not serve them the summons when the truth and fact of the matter is that their party thugs assaulted and battered the Sheriff as he effected the service on June 15, 2017," he said.
Mr Muzadzi said the media coverage of the court case was so extensive and it was childish for Mr Tsvangirai and the other two to profess ignorance of the matter.
"This is sad for someone who was the Prime Minister of Zimbabwe to fabricate kindergarten lies to escape paying a youth who, by genius, organised his 2013 grand coalition," reads the opposing affidavit.
In the rescission application, Mr Tsvangirai, together with his brother Manasa and Mr Komichi, argued that they were never served with the summons and that they only learnt of the default judgment through the Press.
"I verily assert that I was never served with the summons by the respondent through the Deputy Sheriff and, therefore, had no knowledge of this claim," said Mr Tsvangirai.
He argued that the Sheriff, if he served the papers on a receptionist at Harvest House, erred because he should have served him at his home.
Mr Tsvangirai said his brother Manasa was not an MDC-T official.
Mr Komichi, it is argued, is the party's deputy chairperson, but does not stay at Harvest House.
The three argued that the default judgment was obtained fraudulently and that their prospects of success if the matter is referred to trial were high.
Source - the herald