A legal battle between former Zimbabwe People’s Revolutionary Army (ZPRA) fighters over the ownership of Geddes Building in Bulawayo has been temporarily halted after Bulawayo High Court Judge Justice Bongani Ndlovu struck the matter off the roll, citing critical technical deficiencies in the application.
Justice Ndlovu identified procedural irregularities that prevented the case from proceeding, specifically highlighting an undated letter that formed a crucial part of the submissions made by the applicant – Nitram Private Limited.
“There are some technical issues about this application. So I am going to strike the matter off the roll,” explained Justice Ndlovu.
“This letter (from the applicant ) that has been submitted is not dated yet it is the basis upon which the deliberations should be made. This court cannot overlook this critical aspect because we need to establish that the correspondence between both parties were done within the stipulated dates.”
The judge further advised the second respondent, Frederick Mutanda, to obtain legal representation for himself and the company involved.
“In the meantime, I would advise the second respondent to get a lawyer to represent both himself and the company.”
The case involves Nitram Private Limited, an investment vehicle formed by former ZPRA fighters, which had taken Mutanda to court seeking to compel him to transfer ownership and the property title of the Geddes Building to the company.
According to court documents seen by CITE, Nitram also sought an order to prohibit any disposal of the building before the matter was finalised.
Mutanda, a liberation struggle veteran and non-executive director of Geddes Limited, was listed as the second respondent alongside Geddes Limited (first respondent) and the Registrar of Deeds (third respondent).
Nitram Private Limited was represented by Ndlovu Mehluli and Partners.
The dispute centers on a building that represents the collective investment of former combatants who contributed $50 each from their demobilisation payouts following independence to purchase properties.
According to the summons, the Geddes Building was originally acquired through contributions from ZPRA members and was held in trust.
The court documents detailed Nitram’s claim: “Plaintiff’s claims as against the Defendants (as more fully set out in the Declaration attached hereto) are for an order directing the 1st and 2nd Defendants to transfer title of Geddes Building, located at No. 69 G. Silundika Ave, otherwise known as Stand 43A Bulawayo Township, held under Deed of Transfer 1889/58, to the Plaintiff, Nitram Holdings Limited, within ten (10) days of the granting of the order.”
The summons continued: “Failing such transfer, an order authorising the Sheriff of Zimbabwe to sign all necessary transfer documents at the Registrar of Deeds and Companies on behalf of the Defendants. An interdict prohibiting the 1st and 2nd Defendants from alienating, encumbering, or otherwise disposing of Geddes Building in any manner.”
However, Mutanda contested these demands, challenging Nitram’s very legal existence and standing.
He argued that Nitram was banned in 1982 under a statutory instrument, and that no subsequent legislation had reversed this order, rendering the company unable to legally sue or be sued.
Court papers stated Mutanda’s position: “Applicant lacks locus standi, and in terms of Proclamation 9 of 1982 published as Statutory Instrument 87A of 1982 on 16th February 1982, Nitram Private Limited is an unlawful organisation. The relief sought is incompetent and constitutes an abuse of process.”
In response to Mutanda’s claims, Nitram argued that Geddes Limited should be represented by a duly authorised legal practitioner, noting that if Mutanda intended to represent the company, he needed to present a board resolution authorising him to do so.
Justice Ndlovu affirmed that High Court rules require corporate entities to be represented by legal practitioners, reinforcing the need for proper legal representation when the matter returns to court.