Farmer petitions JSC over contradictory High Court proceedings

A Guruve farmer has lodged a formal complaint with the Judicial Service Commission (JSC), seeking an investigation into what he describes as contradictory procedural developments in a High Court dispute involving his agricultural joint venture partner.


Andrew Brice Gordon Francis, who operates Chikonyora Estate in Guruve, is questioning the handling of High Court case number HCH 3522/26 after an application by Chomatt Enterprises (Private) Limited was reportedly granted in chambers before being scheduled for another hearing, which was subsequently cancelled shortly before proceedings were due to begin.

In a letter dated November 8, 2026, addressed to the JSC secretary, Francis requested an administrative investigation into an order issued by Justice Chidziva on October 28, the subsequent hearing notice and the cancellation of proceedings scheduled for November 4.

He argued that the developments had created uncertainty over the procedural status of the court order and raised questions about transparency in the administration of the case.

“I respect the independence and authority of the Judiciary. My complaint is not intended to invite the Judicial Service Commission to substitute its judgment for that of the High Court on the legal merits of the application,” Francis said.

The dispute arises from a Joint Venture Agreement between Francis and Chomatt Enterprises concerning agricultural operations at Chikonyora Estate.
Although the agreement provided for a 10-year contractual period, Francis maintains that Clause 1(h) allowed either party to terminate the arrangement by giving a season’s written notice, taking into account crops already planted and other farming considerations.

Through his lawyers, Maruwa Machanzi Attorneys, Francis reportedly issued a cancellation notice on June 30, 2025, giving Chomatt the entire 2025/2026 farming season to vacate the property.

However, Chomatt disputed the termination and approached the High Court seeking an order designating the Commercial Arbitration Centre (CAC) as the appointing authority for an arbitrator to resolve the dispute.

Francis opposed the application, arguing that Clause 14 of the agreement provided for an amicable settlement, referral to the responsible minister and, ultimately, arbitration under the Arbitration Act.

He further argued that the agreement did not expressly designate CAC as the authority responsible for appointing an arbitrator.
Despite his opposition, Justice Chidziva granted the application on October 28, designating CAC as the appointing authority responsible for selecting an arbitrator to determine the dispute.

Francis said his lawyers requested written reasons for the ruling on October 30 to establish the legal basis for the decision.

The request was acknowledged through the court’s Integrated Electronic Case Management System (IECMS).
However, on the same day, a hearing notice was issued indicating that the same application would be heard and determined physically by Justice Chidziva on November 4 at noon.

Francis questioned the development, arguing that the court had already issued an order granting the application.

Meanwhile, Chomatt’s lawyers, Gill, Godlonton and Gerrans, reportedly forwarded the October 28 order to CAC on October 30, initiating the process of appointing an arbitrator.

In correspondence dated November 2, CAC chairman M A Masunda advised the parties that the centre intended to appoint an arbitrator directly from its pool of potential candidates.

CAC also requested an administration fee of US$800, ordinarily shared equally between the parties.

Francis’ lawyers subsequently asked CAC to suspend the appointment process pending the November 4 court hearing, arguing that the purpose and procedural status of the scheduled proceedings remained unclear.

However, at approximately 10.15am on November 4, less than two hours before the hearing was due to begin, Francis received an IECMS notification advising that the proceedings had been cancelled.

According to Francis, no reasons were provided for the cancellation.

Following the development, Maruwa Machanzi Attorneys wrote to the High Court registrar seeking clarification on the circumstances surrounding the original court order, the subsequent hearing notice and its cancellation.

The lawyers also requested an update on their outstanding application for written reasons for the ruling.

Francis said the court acknowledged receipt of the correspondence and confirmed that it had been placed before Justice Chidziva.

However, he said no substantive explanation had been received by the time he lodged his complaint with the JSC.

Francis emphasised that he was not accusing any judicial officer of misconduct or improper motives but wanted the administrative circumstances surrounding the developments investigated.

Among the issues he wants clarified are who authorised the November 4 hearing, whether it was scheduled following a judicial direction or through an administrative process, and why it was cancelled shortly before commencement.

He also wants the JSC to facilitate an appropriate explanation of the procedural developments and establish the status of his outstanding request for written reasons.
“I am not seeking preferential treatment or to obstruct lawful arbitration. I ask only that proceedings affecting my rights be administered consistently, transparently and in accordance with the law,” Francis said.

He acknowledged that the JSC could not overturn a judicial order through an administrative complaint, noting that any challenge to the ruling would have to be pursued through the appropriate legal channels.

The complaint was accompanied by copies of the October 28 court order, the hearing notice, the cancellation notification, correspondence involving the parties’ lawyers and CAC, and the joint venture agreement.

The JSC’s response to the complaint was not included in the documents supplied.

The dispute remains centred on the termination of the agricultural joint venture and the procedure for appointing an arbitrator to resolve the disagreement between the parties.