Thursday 25 July 2019


South Africa-based Zimbabwe businessman, Frank Buyanga Sadiqi, has been accused of using his political connections to defy a court order compelling him to return his four-year old child to his estranged girlfriend, Chantelle Muteswa.

These remarks were made by a Harare lawyer, Arnold Taruvinga in an urgent chamber application filed by Muteswa, seeking an order to compel Buyanga to return the child who has been with him for the past three weeks.

“It is clear that applicant (Muteswa) has the difficulty of securing assistance from the Zimbabwe Republic Police (ZRP) because the respondent (Buyanga) is well connected to senior level politicians. This court does not harbour the same fears and is empowered to order all members of ZRP to enforce its orders at any time,” Taruvinga said.

It also emerged in the same application that Buyanga allegedly obtained an extension of the custody of the child from a Harare Civil Court through an ex-parte
application which Muteswa said was dubiously granted.

“It has now come to my attention that on July 19, 2019, respondent, through Manase and Manase Legal practitioners, made an ex-parte application whose case number is still unknown to myself to extend respondent’s period of access indefinitely on a basis which also remains unknown to myself until I am served with that application at an indefinite date,” Muteswa said.

“I subsequently received a WhatsApp message from respondent’s employee containing a letter to the effect that respondent will not be returning the child to my custody on the strength of what appears to be a court order that does not bear the name of any magistrate…I am advised that it is grossly irregular that a court grants custody, even temporary custody, to a non-custodial parent in the absence of the custodial parent.”

According to Muteswa, Buyanga indicated that he would only return the child if he is satisfied that her new residential address is suitable for his son.

“Through Manase and Manase, respondent has set unreasonable, unlawful and unconstitutional demands to inspect the applicant’s residence for fitness as a
prerequisite for the child’s return,” she said.

The matter is pending. Newsday


Post a Comment