Zimpapers Logo

Prosper Dembedza
Herald Correspondent

A review application filed by George George Katsimberis for the recusal of two prosecutors has been struck off the roll by the High Court.

The same court also struck off the roll another application by Katsimberis to have his fraud case referred to the Apex Court.

The builder recently filed an application for the recusal of Deputy Prosecutor Mr Micheal Reza from his fraud case.

At the High court, Katsimberis had filed for review of his application for recusal of prosecutor Audrey Chogumaira and Ephraim Zinyandu from his case.

He sought the recusal after the court ruled that his application was vexatious and lacked merit.

Irked by the dismissal of the matter, he approached the High Court for review but the matter was set for today and it was struck off the roll.

Chogumaira had since been promoted to the High Court and Zinyandu stopped prosecuting that case.

Katsimberis wanted the High Court to review an application for referral of his fraud case to the Constitutional Court saying he was headed for an unfair trial.

This came after Harare magistrate Letween Rwodzi dismissed his application prompting him to approach the High Court to overturn that determination by the lower court.

But yesterday, High Court Judge Justice Muzawazi struck the matter off the roll arguing that she will not be able to hear the case as she will be working in Chinhoyi and will have to listen to the submissions by both parties.

His lawyer Tendai Biti however asked for the matter to be expeditiously placed before two judges.

Justice Muzawazi went on to remove the matter from the roll and directed that the matter be heard before two judges.

Katsimberis is accused of fraud after he allegedly built a showroom in a cluster houses joint venture deal using an unapproved and fraudulent building plan, which he claimed was approved by the City of Harare.

However, the City of Harare has since distanced itself from the building plan approval by labelling it a fraudulent document signed by one person instead of being signed by line departments.

This resulted in the complainant suffering a prejudice of US$1 million.