Zimpapers Logo

Mr Mangwana

Fidelis Munyoro Chief Court Reporter
The High Court has stopped arbitration proceedings pitting Chinhoyi municipality and a Harare lawyer over cancellation of a debt collection contract.

Mr Paul Munyaradzi Mangwana, a senior partner at Mangwana and Partners Legal Practitioners, has taken the municipality to an arbitrator, seeking to recover $2, 2 million for services rendered and damages over the cancellation of the contract.

Chinhoyi municipality had approached the higher court seeking to stop the arbitration proceedings citing irregularity in the manner the case was being handled by the arbitrator, former judge Justice Moses Chinhengo.

Justice Tawanda Herbert Chitapi granted the urgent application to stop the proceedings saying they were being conducted in an irregular manner.

He said that as a general rule, a court should not rush to intervene in uncompleted proceedings pending before an inferior court.

“The inherent jurisdiction of this court to interfere with proceedings will only be sparingly invoked and in exceptional circumstances,” said Justice Chitapi.

“In this case, the applicant has proved a prima facie case that the proceedings before the second respondent have been conducted without due observance of the due process of the law and there is a prema facie well-grounded fear that justice will be a casualty if the proceedings are not interfered with.”

The municipality wanted to stop the arbitration proceedings between the parties held last month before Justice Chinhengo stopped on the basis that they were conducted without determination on the point of jurisdiction.

The council further sought the proceedings stayed until the determination of the question of jurisdiction before the judge.

Justice Chitapi accepted submissions by Advocate Sylvester Hashiti representing Chinhoyi that Justice Chinhengo should have ruled on the question of his jurisdiction before proceeding to hear arguments on the merits.

In his ruling, Justice Chitapi referred to Article 16 of the Arbitration Act that gives the arbitrator the power to rule on the aspect of his jurisdiction in such matters.

“In this case the second respondent did not make a ruling before proceeding with the case. Therein lies the irregularity,” he said.

In its application, the municipality argued that it raised a preliminary point on the question of the jurisdiction and appointment of Justice Chinhengo.

After hearing the argument, the matter was reserved to the following day. However, when the hearing resumed, the municipality sought a postponement as it had engaged new counsel to argue the matter.

Rather than make a ruling at first instance on the question of jurisdiction, Justice Chinhengo went ahead to hear the matter on the merits. This was despite the challenge to his jurisdiction.

Chinhoyi municipality, in a full council meeting held on September 8 last year, terminated Mangwana’s business contract for allegedly failing to comply with terms of the agreement. The contract was later given to another law firm.

Mr Mangwana claims the parties entered a debt collection agreement on July 29, 2015. He argues that in terms of the contract, the law firm was supposed to collect $9 169 453,77 from the municipality’s debtors.