Wednesday, 26 February 2020


VICE President Kembo Mohadi has withdrawn an application for the dismissal of his ex-wife Tambudzani Muleya’s application for review of a ruling by a magistrate who dealt with the VP’s application for a protection order.

Muleya had accused the magistrate of bungling legal procedures, after the court official ruled in Mohadi’s favour.

Mohadi had approached the High Court seeking to have the application dismissed, claiming Tambudzani had failed to have it prosecuted within a reasonable time.

Muleya’s lawyers from Scanlen & Holderness have written to Mohadi’s lawyers Mugiya & Muvhami, stating that the matter had been resolved through another High Court case between the parties.

“We note the following: the matter-application for dismissal for want of prosecution relates to a matter in which parties filed a consent order before Musithu J,” the lawyers said, adding that there seemed to be no need to proceed with Mohadi’s application in light of the developments.

“This matter was set down for hearing on the 24th day of February 2020 before Justice Chirawu Mugomba. We write therefore to advise that on the set down we shall apply that the matter be withdrawn as the main application held under HC 9929/18 has been determined. The application is now academic,” Mohadi’s lawyers said.

Mohadi and his wife divorced in March last year, after a long legal battle, which also saw the two going to court on several occasions.

Following Muleya’s application, Mohadi went to court claiming the matter should have been set down for hearing within a month.

“On October 29, 2018, the respondent made an application for review under section 27(1) of the High Court Act, as read with Order 33 of the High Court Rules 1971 … on November 1, 2018, I filed my notice of opposition, which was served on the respondent on November 2, 2018, clearly highlighting that the respondent’s issues were baseless and seriously without merit.

“The respondent was supposed to file an answering affidavit or set the matter down for hearing within a month and the respondent up to date, has refused, failed and/or neglected to do that and it is against this background that I make this application for dismissal for want of prosecution,” he said. Daily News


Post a comment