Latest News Editor's Choice


News / National

Trouble rains down on Magaya

by Staff reporter
6 hrs ago | 301 Views
In a fresh legal setback for Walter Magaya, the High Court of Zimbabwe has ordered the Prophetic Healing and Deliverance (PHD) Ministries founder to repay US$3 million to an Israeli businessman, dismissing his attempt to rely on local exchange control laws to void the debt.

In the matter filed under case number HC 621/23, the court rejected Magaya's argument that the mining investment debt was unlawful under Zimbabwe's exchange control regulations. He had sought to repay the investors in local currency rather than the US$3 million advanced through Ambassador Ronny Levi Musan.

Justice Maxwell Takuva dismissed submissions by Advocate Garikai Sithole, who argued that the debt was illegal. The judge instead sided with Advocate Tazorora Musarurwa's position that upholding such technicalities would undermine investor confidence and stifle foreign investment.

In his ruling, Justice Takuva found that Magaya had failed to demonstrate any illegality on the part of the plaintiff.

"The defendant failed to prove illegality and has not shown any violation of Zimbabwean law by the plaintiff," the judge said.

He further ruled that exchange control regulations apply only to Zimbabwean residents and that Magaya could not claim illegality after having prescribed the payment method and benefited from the funds.

"The defendant is estopped from claiming illegality as he prescribed the payment method and benefited from it. Public policy is averse to unjust enrichment, preventing the defendant from profiting unjustly from US$3 000 000.00," the judgment read in part.

The court consequently ordered Magaya to repay the US$3 million together with interest at a rate of 3 percent per month, compounded from July 2022. It also authorised the execution of his immovable property should he fail to settle the debt.

"In the result, it is ordered that the preliminary point raised be and is hereby dismissed for lack of merit," Justice Takuva ruled.

The decision marks a significant development in the high-profile dispute and underscores the judiciary's stance on contractual obligations and investor protection.

Source - online
Join the discussion
Loading comments…

Get the Daily Digest