Muringi was
convicted of contempt of court after he deliberately disposed of a motor
vehicle in violation of a court order, and was sentenced to four months
imprisonment, which was wholly suspended on condition that he performs
community service.
However,
according to the evidence presented by prosecutor Mr Takudzwa Jambawo in the
form of affidavits from the station where he was supposed to perform the unpaid
work, Muringi never showed up and was in willful default.
Presiding
magistrate Ms Lisa Mutendereki was left with no choice but to order Muringi to
serve the alternative sentence.
The complainant
was businessman Patrick ‘Chimpa’ Mutenha.
Prosecutor
Takudzwa Jambawo proved that on August 4 last year, Muringi was arrested for
fraud and money laundering, resulting in his white Toyota Hilux double cab
registration number AGE 2352 being impounded and held at CID CCD as an exhibit.
The matter was
referred to Harare Magistrates Court for prosecution and he later applied for
the release of the car.
On December 18,
the Provincial Magistrate granted a court order for the release of the motor
vehicle from police custody to Muringi, but on condition that he would produce
the said vehicle upon request by the State.
He was also
ordered not to dispose of the vehicle pending the finalisation of the matter.
On December 20, Muringi sold the car to Chimpa for US$50 000.
He produced an
agreement of sale and never disclosed the status of the vehicle to the
complainant.
Muringi then
hatched a plan to recover the vehicle from Chimpa. He reported that the vehicle
had been stolen.
Chimpa was
arrested by the Vehicle Theft Squad. During the investigation, the status of
the car was established.
The car was
impounded as an exhibit. In her judgment, magistrate Ms Mutendereki said
Muringi had only been granted temporary access to the vehicle, which he then
disposed of.
“The court
wasn’t there to look at the agreement of sale in the strictest sense, but it
had occasion to go through the court order and the terms of the court of order
had to be read holistically to establish the intention of its issuance,” she
said.
“The car was
subject to a criminal case that was ongoing. He (Muringi) was granted temporary
use of the vehicle and it was to be made available if needed without disposing
of it.
“The intention
was that even though the accused was granted access to the vehicle, he was
supposed to keep it and selling the vehicle would have breached the order as he
wouldn’t then be able to produce it upon demand by the court.
“Was the
vehicle going to be available upon demand after being sold? No, so it’s the
court’s finding that he was in breach of the order as he knew that he was
supposed to be in possession of the car at all material times.” Herald
0 comments:
Post a Comment