Kennan faces
allegations of corruption, judicial fraud and obstruction of justice.
His arrest
follows a Supreme Court judgment ordering reinstatement of a case in which
Courchgrass (Pvt) Ltd is being challenged by Sayles Corporation over a prime
piece of land, Lot 4 Rietfontein, in the leafy Borrowdale suburb.
Courchgrass,
which is controlled by Kennan and John De Wet, is believed to have subdivided
and sold the fraudulently acquired land to 23 unsuspecting members of the
public.
The company
allegedly transferred title of the piece of land after securing a fraudulent
default judgment.
The piece of
land under dispute, measuring 6,8 hectares, was bought by Samalyn Investments
from June Searson before selling it to Sayles Corporation.
Mark Warhurst
of Warhurst Attorneys, who is now being jointly charged with Kennan, has
already been convicted by the Law Society of Zimbabwe over the judicial crime
and awaits sentencing.
In a Supreme
Court ruling delivered on May 25, 2025, Courchgrass was also implicated in
tampering with court papers in order to secure a default judgment which it used
to transfer the prime land.
Justices George
Chiweshe, Susan Mavangira and Joseph Musakwa set aside a previous High Court
ruling which dismissed Sayles’ applications for rescission of judgment and
joinder of parties for want of prosecution.
Sayles had
applied to be joined in the fight for the piece of land between Samalyn and
Courchgrass, but the latter refused to have the rival claimant to be part of
the court processes.
“The court was
convinced from the outset that the appellant was on a wild goose chase . . . It
concluded, therefore, that there were no prospects of success,” part of the
ruling by the Supreme Court read.
“That view was
fundamentally flawed.”
Sayles accused
Courchgrass and the estate executors of fraudulently and unlawfully acquiring
the property in breach of tax laws.
The battle
began after Sayles purchased the contested Reitfontein property from the estate
of the late June Searson in 2018.
Courchgrass
also claimed ownership citing an earlier transaction involving the deceased's
estate leading to a web of litigations and default judgments.
Courchgrass had
previously secured a High Court ruling declaring it the lawful owner. The
Supreme Court has now ruled that Sayles, who was not party to the earlier
litigation, cannot be bound by those decisions.
“Clearly, the
appellant’s claim introduces a new party not involved in the previous
judgment,” the judgment read.
“It cannot be
said that the appellant’s claim is between the same parties or their privileges
as before. For that reason, the appellant’s claim cannot be defeated on account
of res judicata.”
The High Court
had also previously dismissed Sayles’ applications due to procedural delays in
serving court papers to the Searson brothers, who had relocated to Australia.
The Supreme
Court found that Sayles had made legitimate attempts to serve the brothers by
edictal citation and was in fact successful before the lower court heard the
matter.
“The
appellant’s applications have prospects of success,” the court ruled.
“The balance of
convenience favours the appellant as it seeks to have the dispute resolved on
the merits rather than on technicalities.”
After the
Supreme Court overturned the High Court’s dismissal, Sayles’ applications for
rescission and joinder are reinstated. Newsday
0 comments:
Post a Comment