Buyanga dealt a court blow

The High Court has nullified a fraudulent property transaction involving controversial businessman Frank Buyanga, exposing an elaborate web of deceit that included forged documents, illegal property transfers, and a bogus sale agreement.

Justice Gladys Mhuri ruled that the purported sale of Stand 1860 Marlborough Township, Harare, was based on fraud and therefore legally void. She ordered the restoration of ownership to the rightful company, Sagnol International (Pvt) Ltd, and directed the Registrar of Deeds to reverse the unlawful transfer.

The dispute stemmed from a December 2008 transaction in which David Muchinguri, the first plaintiff, borrowed US$20 000 from Zimcor Trustees Ltd, the second defendant. Because Zimcor was not a registered money lender, the parties allegedly disguised the loan as a sale of Sagnol International's entire shareholding - valued at a staggering ZWL1 trillion - to conceal the true nature of the transaction.

This sham arrangement allegedly allowed Buyanga to forge documents, fraudulently transfer shares, and use a fake Capital Gains Tax Clearance Certificate to sell the Marlborough property to Cont River Investment (Pvt) Ltd, cited as the third defendant.

Justice Mhuri dismissed the defendants' arguments, ruling that fraud cannot create legal rights or obligations.

"If an act is void, then it is in law a nullity," she said, referencing Lord Denning's principle and Justice Rita Makarau's earlier precedent that "nothing legal can flow from a fraud."

The court further rejected claims that the matter was time-barred under the Prescription Act, holding that fraud is not subject to prescription.

"The agreement of sale was rooted in dishonesty and deceit and therefore a fraud," Justice Mhuri ruled. "A fraud is a nullity and therefore cannot prescribe."

Consequently, all subsequent transactions arising from the fraudulent agreement were declared void ab initio. Buyanga, Zimcor Trustees Ltd, and Cont River Investment were ordered to bear the costs of the reversal and related legal proceedings.

Legal analysts described the ruling as a strong reaffirmation of the principle that fraudulent schemes - no matter how sophisticated - are unenforceable in law.

Buyanga did not defend the claims in court, further undermining the legitimacy of his actions, the judgment noted.