Meikles lodges complaint against Supreme Court Judge

Zimbabwe Stock Exchange-listed Meikles Limited has lodged a complaint to the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) against Supreme Court Judge Francis Bere over alleged conflict of interest in a ruling he made in favour of Widefree Investments against the quoted firm.

In December 2013, Meikles Limited entered into a consultancy agreement with Widefree Investments trading as Core Solutions, a company linked to industrialist Joseph Kanyekanye. The mandate of the agreement was that Core Solutions would assist Meikles Limited in recovering funds owed to Meikles by the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe.

In a letter seen by Business Times, Meikles Limited is complaining to the JSC that Justice Bere was conflicted in delivering a judgment against Meikles under Case Number SC 503/18

This is because Kanyekanye who is one of the directors at Widefree is a long standing client of Bere Brothers, a law firm founded by the judge and which has to this day Justice Bere's own brother as partner of the firm

"Information has however come to my attention that gives rise to the suspicion that the conditions under which our Supreme Court case was heard did not meet the very high standards of impartiality and integrity that are associated with that Court," wrote Meikles executive chair John Moxon in a letter dated September 20.

Moxon, in the letter said, information in the public domain shows that in 2013 when Joseph Kanyekanye appeared before Mutare Magistrates Court on criminal charges he was represented by Johane Zviuya of Bere Brothers.

Further Bere Brothers are currently advising Kanyekanye's Core Solutions in a dispute that Core Solutions have with government over payment of funds to their client, a South Africa based company.

"This information is a serious concern to us as Meikles Limited as it raises the question of impartiality of our courts in the Core Solutions matter," the letter further reads.

The background of the matter is that a dispute arose between the parties and the contract permitted a process of arbitration to be conducted in such event.

In November 2015, Core Solutions through the arbitration process agreed to by the parties, filed a statement of claim of payment of about $2 million being outstanding principal commission and interest on recovery of part of the debt owed to Meikles by RBZ.

The first issue of contention raised by Meikles upon receipt of the statement of claim was that the arbitrator was appointed without there being mutual agreement between the parties on the appointment of such arbitrator as was required by the contract between the parties. For reasons that remain unsatisfactory to Meikles, the arbitrator dismissed this point. Meikles proceeded to file an application for review of this decision in the High Court and to declare the appointment of the arbitrator ultra vires and contrary to the public policy of Zimbabwe.

The High Court then ruled against Meikles.

The hearing then continued before the arbitrator culminating in an award being given against Meikles. During the arbitration process, Meikles raised the issue of bias against it, from both the arbitration and chairman of the Arbitration Centre, Muchadeyi Masunda, but the former dismissed these concerns and the latter did not respond to correspondence directed to him on the matter.

When Core Solutions sought to register the award with the High Court, Meikles opposed it on the basis that a legal process has been instituted to challenge the propriety of the arbitration process. Justice Muremba who heard the matter dismissed the Meikles position and gave an order in favour of Core Solutions.

"We proceeded to appeal this decision in the Supreme Court and this appeal was dismissed on a technicality as a payment fee of $29 was not done on time. The payment was subsequently made once the anomaly was communicated to our lawyers," the letter reads.

"We then applied for condonation on the grounds of administrative justice in that our appeal could not go unheard on such a mere technicality and this application was heard by Justice Bere in the Supreme Court (Case Number SC 503/18) and dismissed.

"Although it has been a source of great concern that none of the decisions in the arbitration process, the High Court and Supreme Court have been ruled in our favour regardless of what we perceive as solid and strong grounds supporting our various applications , we have accepted these decisions on the understanding that these rulings emanate from impartial adjudicators (with the exception of the arbitrator whose impartiality we constantly questioned with firstly Masunda and then the arbitrator himself Justice Moses Chinhengo and finally before the High Court)." Meikles Limited is therefore requesting the JSC to do an examination the circumstances in which its case was examined.