HARARE
–
The
Constitutional
Court
has
granted
prominent
businessman
Jayesh
Shah
direct
access
to
Zimbabwe’s
apex
court,
marking
a
major
development
in
his
protracted
legal
battle
with
former
Zupco
chairman
Charles
Nherera.
This
comes
after
Shah
successfully
challenged
the
Supreme
Court’s
handling
of
his
appeal
against
a
High
Court
ruling
that
ordered
him
to
pay
Nherera
US$130,000
in
damages
for
alleged
unlawful
arrest
and
malicious
prosecution.
In
a
judgment
delivered
by
Justice
Rita
Makarau,
the
Constitutional
Court
found
that
Shah’s
case
raised
legitimate
constitutional
issues,
warranting
the
court’s
intervention.
“It
appears
to
me
that
the
trial
was
conducted
in
a
grossly
irregular
fashion,
thereby
robbing
it
of
the
fairness
that
is
a
prerequisite
of
a
trial
under
the
law,”
said
Makarau.
She
noted
that
the
trial
court
had
improperly
ceded
jurisdiction
to
the
appeal
court,
undermining
the
principle
of
impartial
adjudication.
“These
irregularities
could—and
in
my
view,
should—have
been
corrected
by
the
court
a
quo,”
she
added,
suggesting
that
the
lower
court’s
failure
to
apply
the
correct
law
may
have
breached
Shah’s
constitutional
rights.
A
20-Year
Saga
The
legal
feud
dates
back
more
than
two
decades,
when
Shah—through
his
company,
Gift
Investments
(Private)
Limited—was
engaged
in
commercial
dealings
with
Zupco,
then
chaired
by
Nherera.
One
aspect
of
the
relationship
involved
a
lease
agreement,
under
which
Gift
Investments
rented
property
from
Zupco.
After
a
legal
dispute,
both
the
High
Court
and
Supreme
Court
ruled
that
Shah
had
paid
a
bribe
to
Nherera
to
extend
the
lease—claims
Shah
denies.
In
a
separate
deal,
Gift
Investments
supplied
buses
to
Zupco,
during
which
Nherera
allegedly
solicited
a
bribe
to
facilitate
a
contract.
In
2005,
both
men
were
arrested
on
corruption
charges.
Shah
was
granted
immunity
from
prosecution
on
condition
that
he
testify
against
Nherera.
Following
Shah’s
testimony,
Nherera
was
convicted
and
sentenced
to
two
years
in
prison.
However,
in
2009,
the
High
Court
overturned
his
conviction—after
he
had
already
served
the
full
sentence.
In
2011,
Nherera
sued
Shah
for
US$400,000
in
damages,
claiming
malicious
arrest,
prosecution,
and
imprisonment.
The
High
Court
initially
absolved
Shah
of
liability,
but
this
ruling
was
overturned
on
appeal
and
the
trial
resumed.
Ultimately,
the
court
awarded
Nherera
US$30,000
for
malicious
prosecution
and
US$100,000
for
wrongful
arrest
and
detention—payable
in
Zimbabwe’s
local
currency
at
the
prevailing
rate.
Shah
appealed
to
the
Supreme
Court
on
seven
grounds,
arguing
that
the
decision
infringed
his
constitutional
rights,
including
the
right
to
a
fair
hearing
(Section
69(2))
and
the
right
to
equal
protection
under
the
law
(Section
56(1)).
The
Constitutional
Court
has
now
cleared
the
way
for
Shah
to
argue
these
constitutional
violations
before
it.