Ex-PRAZ boss finally surrenders vehicle Mr Nyasha Chizu

Fidelis Munyoro-Chief Court Reporter

Former chief executive of the Procurement Regulatory Authority of Zimbabwe (PRAZ), Mr Nyasha Chizu, has finally been made to surrender his top-of-the range company car, four years after his contract was terminated in October 2018.

Following the termination of his employment contract on three months’ notice, Mr Chizu surrendered every other company asset he was using except the vehicle, a Mercedes Benz ML, arguing that a dispute over termination of his contract was still pending before the same court.

But Justice Tawanda Chitapi ruled that Mr Chizu had no valid right at law to continue holding on to the vehicle against the owner, noting that the termination of his employment remained valid until set aside by the court.

“In the meantime, the respondent has no right to hold on to the vehicle or has failed to establish that right. Vindication must be granted,” he said.

In this case, PRAZ also sought costs of the legal practitioner and client scale, which Justice Chitapi said was justified because the scale was a departure from the ordinary court scale. 

This scale means that Mr Chizu has to pay the fees of the lawyers hired by PRAZ, not just the court costs.

PRAZ argued that it had incurred unnecessary costs in instituting the application against an intransigent respondent who took the law into his own hands.

“I am inclined to grant costs on this scale,” he said. “All the objective facts point to deliberate refusal by the respondent to return the vehicle for no other purpose than selfishness.”

Justice Chitapi in his judgment also noted that Mr Chizu surrendered all the other property, but deliberately kept the vehicle.

This, the judge said, Mr Chizu appreciated that he could not keep the property after termination of employment and mounted a spurious defence that the case was still pending in court.

PRAZ approached the High Court seeking to compel Mr Chizu to surrender the vehicle following the termination of his employment contract.

Mr Chizu, who was being represented by Hogwe, Nyengedza Legal practitioners, refused to return the vehicle, arguing that the High Court ought to first rule on his initial application challenging termination of his contract on notice, saying it was invalid given that he was never heard as required by the Constitution.

His contention was that the Labour Act, which provides termination of contract on notice, was unconstitutional. 

Arguing the matter for PRAZ, Mr Agmos Moyo of Kantor and Immerman said Mr Chizu’s continuing holding on to the vehicle despite no longer being an employee of the institution was unlawful.

He submitted that an owner of property cannot be deprived of its property without its consent.

And where such unlawful deprivation takes place, an owner of property is entitled to recover it from anyone in its possession.

Such owner, Mr Moyo argued, was merely required to allege that it was the owner of the property and the property was in the possession of the respondent at the time of commencement of the action or application.

You Might Also Like

Comments

Take our Survey

We value your opinion! Take a moment to complete our survey