Businessman withdraws ZEGU suit

Businessman withdraws ZEGU suit

gavel2Daniel Nemukuyu Senior Court Reporter
Bindura businessman Mr Charles Chakumba, who was seeking demolition of the Zimbabwe Ezekiel Guti University because it was built on his gold mine claims, has withdrawn his court case and apologised to President Mugabe and the Zimbabwe Assemblies of God Africa for any disturbances caused by his suit.

Mr Chakumba dropped the case two days after President Mugabe officially opened and endorsed the institution.

The notice of withdrawal filed by his lawyers Tavenhave and Machingauta Legal Practitioners reads:

“Be pleased to take notice that the plaintiff hereby withdraws the matter and tenders wasted costs”

In a statement, Mr Chakumba’s representative, Mr Ambrose Mandovha, apologised to the nation.

“I would like to apologise to the whole nation for causing some damages on the entire family of ZAOGA locally and abroad.

“I saw it fit and had to put it into consideration not to advance self interests, but to advance those of the majority.

“Secondly, my apology goes to His Excellency Cde R.G. Mugabe who has a vision of empowering the sons and daughters through opening of higher and tertiary institutions.

“I had no intention of disrespecting his great vision of expanding higher and tertiary education in Zimbabwe and moreso in my province Mashonaland Central,” reads part of the statement.

A fortnight ago, Justice Joseph Musakwa granted a default order for the eviction of ZAOGA from the piece of land where the university was built to pave way for Mr Chakumba to conduct his gold mining activities on the land.

Last week, the High Court temporarily suspended the demolition of the multimillion-dollar university pending determination of the Zimbabwe Assemblies of God Africa church’s application for rescission of the court’s decision.

In light of the withdrawal of the matter, there will be no need for the determination of the application for rescission of judgment.

The church confirmed to the court that it indeed refused to vacate the land because it had also been allocated the same piece of land by council.

Share This: