“The applicant is attempting to vindicate her rights in the immovable property, over which she holds title deeds. In this regard, Justice Chinamora agreed with Ms Savanhu legal counsel that the averments made were relevant to warrant the court hearing arguments on the merit. In addition, Ms Savanhu also wants an order declaring that the subdivision permit and all other official documents relating to the subdivision of the immovable property, which were issued in the name of Mr Kona in respect of the immovable property, to be deemed to have been issued to her.įurther, she wants an order directing that all purchasers of subdivisions of the immovable property, who purchased the same from Mr Kona, be directed to enter into agreements of sale with her, failing which they will be evicted from the immovable property. Ms Savanhu, in her application, is also seeking orders declaring her owner of immovable property in question, that she did not enter into any agreement to surrender the immovable property to Dr Ushewokunze, that she never sold the immovable property to Mr Kona and that, therefore, any agreement of sale between Mr Kona and members of the Dlamini Township Residence Association and Riverside Estate Trust is invalid. ![]() ![]() The title deeds were the decisive factor in the hearing of this case. In a judgment handed down on Wednesday, Justice Webster Chinamora threw out numerous preliminary points raised by the respondents seeking to block Ms Savanhu from being heard, paving way for the matter to be decided on the merits of the evidence and argument presented by both sides. The first round in the latest dispute went in favour of Ms Savanhu. She claimed that following termination of her relationship with Dr Ushewokunze, the properties were left in her name because they had been bought for her as a gift. She also wants to set aside some High Court judgments pertaining to the three stands measuring a total of 40ha, claiming these judgments were made in error. Ms Savanhu, more than 27 years after the death of her former lover, wants the three properties excluded from the estate claiming they were donated to her. Bulawayo City Council, the Registrar of Deeds office in Bulawayo, the Surveyor General’s office in Bulawayo, the Sheriff of Zimbabwe and the Master of High Court were also cited, since they are the ones who will have to implement whatever the High Court decides. Ms Savanhu recently filed a lawsuit at the High Court citing the estate of Ushewokunze, Estate Late Duncan William Kona, Nomsa Hazel Ncube, Taruberekera Netsai Makhosazana, Dlamini Township Residents Association, Riverside Estate Trust, Ambrose Nzewi and Nonoti Properties. In Ms Savanhu’s case the fact that her name is on the title deeds means that the High Court will hear the case in full. So the estate of the buyer, Duncan Kona, is also involved. ![]() In any case there have already been High Court judgments that concern the stands, judgments Ms Savanhu wants reversed.Īn additional complication is that there are claims she sold the property, or some of the property, although that purchaser is now also dead, and that some of the land was subdivided subsequently and sold again, creating a lengthening chain of potential ownership. At the centre of the latest estate dispute is a United Kingdom-based nurse, Ms Georgina Dadirai Savanhu, who is fighting to retain three Bulawayo properties she claimed were donated to her by the national hero during the couple’s two-year relationship from 1981 to 1983.ĭuring this time Dr Ushewokunze bought three properties in Bulawayo and registered them in Ms Savanhu’s name, but the problem is not as simple as just looking at a title deed as the executors and trustees of the estate say the three were always part of Dr Ushewokunze’s estate and just registered in another name to circumvent the Zanu PF leadership code.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |