News / National
Matsika's bid for Croco Motors hits final legal roadblock
4 hrs ago | Views
Businessman Farai Matsika's prolonged legal battle to claim shareholding in Croco Motors has reached a conclusive end, with the High Court striking his latest case off the roll. This marks the latest defeat in a series of legal setbacks, with prior rulings from the Supreme Court and Constitutional Court unequivocally dismissing his claims.
The Legal Battle Unfolds
Mr. Matsika's contention over a 30% shareholding in Croco Motors has been fraught with allegations of forgery and falsehoods. The Supreme Court previously ruled that Mr. Matsika's claim was baseless and founded on fraudulent grounds. Despite this, he pursued a review of the judgment, which was rejected. His subsequent appeal to the Constitutional Court also failed, with the court affirming that he has no entitlement to Croco Motors shares.
These definitive rulings effectively ended Mr. Matsika's legal avenues. However, his latest attempt saw him align with Mr. Peter Chingwena, the brother of his former business partner, Mr. Moses Chingwena. The case, brought by Mr. Peter Chingwena, sought to challenge the ownership and management of Croco Motors, accusing Mr. Moses Chingwena of fraudulently removing him as a shareholder and unlawfully managing the company.
The High Court Ruling
High Court Judge Justice Gibson Mandaza last week upheld preliminary objections raised by the Chingwena family, striking the case off the roll with costs. Justice Mandaza's decision aligns with prior rulings that have consistently affirmed Mr. Moses Chingwena as the sole shareholder of Croco Motors.
The Chingwena family argued that Mr. Peter Chingwena's renewed interest in the case was unwarranted, given the finality of earlier judgments. The court also ruled that Mr. Matsika's involvement as a director and his claim of shareholding lacked any legal foundation.
Previous Court Decisions
In November 2021, Supreme Court Judge Justice Chinembiri Bhunu described Mr. Matsika as a "dishonest and devious person" who manipulated facts to support his claims. The court imposed punitive costs on Mr. Matsika, highlighting his attempt to advance a baseless cause.
The Constitutional Court later dismissed his application to appeal the Supreme Court ruling, reinforcing the conclusion that his shareholding claims were without merit.
High-Profile Legal Representation
The protracted dispute saw all parties represented by prominent lawyers. Mr. Peter Chingwena was represented by Advocate Garikayi Sithole. Advocate Thabani Mpofu argued on behalf of Croco Holdings and the Chingwena family, while Professor Lovemore Madhuku and Mr. Itayi Ndudzo represented Mr. Matsika. Advocate Thembinkosi Magwaliba and Advocate David Ochieng defended Mr. Moses Chingwena's sons, Wesley and Wayne.
With the courts consistently dismissing Mr. Matsika's claims, this latest ruling underscores the finality of the matter. The Chingwena family retains sole ownership and management of Croco Motors, while Mr. Matsika's quest for shareholding comes to an unequivocal end.
The Legal Battle Unfolds
Mr. Matsika's contention over a 30% shareholding in Croco Motors has been fraught with allegations of forgery and falsehoods. The Supreme Court previously ruled that Mr. Matsika's claim was baseless and founded on fraudulent grounds. Despite this, he pursued a review of the judgment, which was rejected. His subsequent appeal to the Constitutional Court also failed, with the court affirming that he has no entitlement to Croco Motors shares.
These definitive rulings effectively ended Mr. Matsika's legal avenues. However, his latest attempt saw him align with Mr. Peter Chingwena, the brother of his former business partner, Mr. Moses Chingwena. The case, brought by Mr. Peter Chingwena, sought to challenge the ownership and management of Croco Motors, accusing Mr. Moses Chingwena of fraudulently removing him as a shareholder and unlawfully managing the company.
The High Court Ruling
High Court Judge Justice Gibson Mandaza last week upheld preliminary objections raised by the Chingwena family, striking the case off the roll with costs. Justice Mandaza's decision aligns with prior rulings that have consistently affirmed Mr. Moses Chingwena as the sole shareholder of Croco Motors.
The Chingwena family argued that Mr. Peter Chingwena's renewed interest in the case was unwarranted, given the finality of earlier judgments. The court also ruled that Mr. Matsika's involvement as a director and his claim of shareholding lacked any legal foundation.
Previous Court Decisions
In November 2021, Supreme Court Judge Justice Chinembiri Bhunu described Mr. Matsika as a "dishonest and devious person" who manipulated facts to support his claims. The court imposed punitive costs on Mr. Matsika, highlighting his attempt to advance a baseless cause.
The Constitutional Court later dismissed his application to appeal the Supreme Court ruling, reinforcing the conclusion that his shareholding claims were without merit.
High-Profile Legal Representation
The protracted dispute saw all parties represented by prominent lawyers. Mr. Peter Chingwena was represented by Advocate Garikayi Sithole. Advocate Thabani Mpofu argued on behalf of Croco Holdings and the Chingwena family, while Professor Lovemore Madhuku and Mr. Itayi Ndudzo represented Mr. Matsika. Advocate Thembinkosi Magwaliba and Advocate David Ochieng defended Mr. Moses Chingwena's sons, Wesley and Wayne.
With the courts consistently dismissing Mr. Matsika's claims, this latest ruling underscores the finality of the matter. The Chingwena family retains sole ownership and management of Croco Motors, while Mr. Matsika's quest for shareholding comes to an unequivocal end.
Source - The Herald
