HARARE
–
A
damning
letter
of
complaint
submitted
to
Zimbabwe’s
Judicial
Service
Commission
by
legal
representatives
of
Technoimpex
JSC,
a
Bulgarian
state-owned
company,
has
sparked
outrage
in
legal
and
diplomatic
circles,
raising
serious
concerns
over
the
integrity
of
judicial
processes
involving
foreign
investors
in
Zimbabwe.
The
complaint,
dated
July
31,
2025,
and
authored
by
law
firm
Sinyoro
&
Partners,
levels
severe
allegations
against
Justice
Never
Katiyo
of
the
Harare
High
Court.
The
Bulgarian
firm
alleges
that
the
judge
handed
down
a
judgement
on
a
matter
that
was
never
argued
in
court,
thereby
“aiding
fraudsters”
and
violating
fundamental
principles
of
justice.
Technoimpex
JSC
has
been
embroiled
in
a
years-long
legal
battle
over
ownership
of
a
prime
piece
of
real
estate
in
Harare,
known
as
Bath
Mansions
Flats
at
32
Bath
Road,
Avondale—a
property
it
claims
to
have
owned
since
1989.
The
dispute,
at
its
core,
revolves
around
a
fraudulent
scheme
allegedly
orchestrated
by
Zimbabwean
nationals
Rajendrakumar
Jogi
and
Sarah
Hwingwiri,
who
are
accused
of
using
a
locally
incorporated
“clone”
company—Technoimpex
JSC
(Private)
Limited—to
illegally
sell
and
transfer
the
foreign-owned
property.
A
deed
of
transfer
dated
2019
was
executed
in
Jogi’s
name,
who
later
purported
to
sell
the
same
property
to
a
third
party,
Mustak
Girach.
Technoimpex
maintains
that
it
never
sold
the
property,
never
received
payment,
and
was
never
consulted.
It
has
since
spent
years
in
the
courts
seeking
redress
and
the
reversal
of
what
it
terms
a
“brazen
act
of
fraud.
While
the
litigation
has
traversed
various
judicial
forums,
the
most
disturbing
allegations
arise
from
the
conduct
of
Justice
Katiyo,
who
presided
over
key
proceedings
in
Case
No.
HCH6784/19
and
HCH2524/22.
The
firm
alleges
that
Justice
Katiyo
issued
a
final
judgement
in
HCH6784/19
—
striking
the
matter
from
the
roll
and
discharging
a
provisional
order
that
had
protected
the
property
from
further
transfer
—
without
any
hearing
ever
taking
place.
Even
more
alarmingly,
the
judgement
refers
to
appearances
by
lawyers
that
never
happened,
according
to
both
Technoimpex’s
legal
team
and
its
lead
counsel,
Advocate
Thabani
Mpofu.
In
the
complaint,
the
lawyers
said:
“We
are
seriously
concerned
that
the
improprieties
involved
sail
perilously
close
to
criminality
and
are
astounded
at
the
conduct
of
the
Honourable
Judge.
His
insistence
that
there
was
an
appearance
before
him
when
it
is
objectively
impossible
for
there
to
have
been
such
an
appearance
is
gravely
worrisome.”
The
lawyers
went
further,
explicitly
connecting
the
judge’s
actions
to
the
broader
fraud:
“The
conduct
of
the
judge
has
to
be
viewed
in
the
context
of
the
nature
of
the
dispute
and
the
overall
criminality
that
has
been
exhibited,
against
which
our
client
has
expended
a
fortune
trying
to
undo.
It
is
unfathomable
that
Jogi
and
Hwingwiri
could
perpetrate
all
these
illegalities
without
the
assurance
of
assistance.
The
conduct
of
the
Honourable
Judge
complained
of
constitutes
in
our
view
such
assistance
and
does
not
seem
to
reflect
commitment
to
the
judicial
oath
of
office.”
The
crux
of
the
complaint
is
that
Justice
Katiyo
issued
judgements
in
two
different
matters
without
either
of
them
being
argued
before
him.
The
matter
in
HCH6784/19
had
been
subject
to
several
postponements.
Technoimpex
filed
an
interlocutory
application
to
admit
a
supplementary
affidavit
proving
its
deponent’s
authority
to
represent
the
company.
That
application
was
still
pending
when
the
judge
issued
a
final
ruling,
without
hearing
the
main
case
or
the
pending
application.
The
judgement
also
referenced
oral
arguments
from
lawyers,
including
Advocate
Mpofu,
which
never
took
place.
In
response,
Technoimpex’s
lawyers
wrote
to
Mpofu,
who
confirmed
that
he
never
appeared
before
the
judge
or
made
any
such
submissions.
The
law
firm
included
both
its
letter
and
Mpofu’s
response
in
the
complaint.
Technoimpex
alleges
that
when
confronted,
Justice
Katiyo
stuck
to
his
claim
that
the
matter
had
been
heard
—
a
position
that
the
firm
describes
as
“objectively
impossible”
given
the
official
case
management
orders
on
file
and
the
procedural
history.
The
complaint
notes
that
when
the
dispute
previously
reached
the
Supreme
Court,
the
judges
remitted
the
matter
back
to
the
High
Court
for
a
hearing
“on
the
merits,”
and
specifically
instructed
the
lower
court
not
to
entertain
further
preliminary
objections.
Yet,
as
the
complaint
argues,
Justice
Katiyo
disregarded
this
directive,
focusing
instead
on
procedural
technicalities
that
had
already
been
settled
—
a
move
that
appears
to
have
directly
benefited
the
alleged
fraudsters.
This
is
not
the
first
time
the
judge
has
been
accused
of
misconduct
in
the
same
case.
According
to
Technoimpex,
this
is
now
the
second
time
that
Justice
Katiyo
has
issued
a
judgment
on
a
matter
that
was
never
argued,
while
simultaneously
failing
to
deliver
judgement
in
a
case
that
was
argued
nearly
a
year
ago.
“We
are
extremely
concerned
that
this
is
the
second
time
in
the
same
matter
that
the
Judge
has
handed
down
Judgment
on
matters
not
argued
before
him,
while
neglecting
to
hand
down
judgement
in
HCH2524/22
which
was
argued
on
November
7,
2024,
more
than
nine
months
ago.”
The
pattern,
they
suggest,
points
to
a
deliberate
strategy
to
undermine
Technoimpex’s
legal
standing.
The
implications
of
this
complaint
go
far
beyond
the
immediate
property
dispute.
Technoimpex
JSC
is
not
just
any
private
entity
—
it
is
a
company
with
state
ownership
ties
to
the
government
of
Bulgaria.
Alongside
its
German-affiliated
sister
company,
Bulchimex
GmbH,
Technoimpex
has
held
assets
in
Zimbabwe
for
decades.
In
the
letter,
Technoimpex’s
legal
team
warns
that
judicial
conduct
of
this
kind
risks
tarnishing
the
reputation
of
Zimbabwe’s
judiciary
and
discouraging
foreign
investment:
“It
does
not
help
matters
that
foreign
interests
are
involved
and
are
imperilled
by
what
seems
to
us
to
be
judicial
impropriety.”
The
law
firm
has
formally
requested
the
Judicial
Service
Commission
to
investigate
Justice
Katiyo,
urging
urgent
action
to
restore
credibility.
The
lawyers
copied
their
complaint
to
Chief
Justice
Luke
Malaba,
the
Judge
President,
the
Sheriff,
and
the
Law
Society
of
Zimbabwe.
The
matter
of
whether
the
irregular
judgement
will
be
enforced
remains
unresolved.
Technoimpex
has
called
on
the
Sheriff
of
Zimbabwe
not
to
participate
in
any
execution
of
the
disputed
judgement
pending
a
full
investigation.
If
the
complaint
is
upheld,
it
could
trigger
disciplinary
proceedings
against
a
sitting
judge.
But
for
Technoimpex,
the
stakes
remain
immediate
and
real:
a
prime
Harare
property,
valued
at
over
US$2
million,
hangs
in
the
balance,
as
does
the
company’s
faith
in
Zimbabwe’s
ability
to
protect
foreign
property
rights
through
lawful
process.