Rutendo Mazhindu
Zim Now Reporter
The Constitutional Court has granted prominent businessman Jayesh Shah direct access to the country's apex court, marking a major turning point in his two-decade-long legal battle with former Zupco chairman Charles Nherera.
The decision allows Shah to directly challenge the Supreme Court’s handling of his appeal against a High Court ruling that ordered him to pay Nherera US$130,000 in damages for alleged unlawful arrest and malicious prosecution. This latest ruling from the Constitutional Court signals that the case raises fundamental questions about the fairness of Zimbabwe's judicial process.
In a judgment delivered by Justice Rita Makarau, the Constitutional Court found that Shah’s case presented legitimate constitutional issues that demanded the court's attention.
“It appears to me that the trial was conducted in a grossly irregular fashion, thereby robbing it of the fairness that is a prerequisite of a trial under the law,” Justice Makarau stated.
She further noted that the trial court had improperly surrendered its authority to the appeal court, a move that undermined the core principle of impartial adjudication. "These irregularities could—and in my view, should—have been corrected by the court a quo," she added, implying that the lower court’s failure to apply the correct law may have violated Shah’s constitutional rights.
The legal feud is rooted in commercial dealings that began more than two decades ago between Shah's company, Gift Investments (Private) Limited, and Zupco, which was then chaired by Nherera.
The dispute is multifaceted, involving two separate agreements. In one case, both the High Court and Supreme Court previously ruled that Shah had paid a bribe to Nherera to extend a lease agreement, a claim Shah has consistently denied.
In a separate matter, both men were arrested on corruption charges in 2005 after Nherera allegedly solicited a bribe from Shah to facilitate a bus supply contract. Shah was granted immunity from prosecution on the condition that he testify against Nherera. Following Shah’s testimony, Nherera was convicted and sentenced to two years in prison. However, his conviction was overturned by the High Court in 2009 after he had already served the full sentence.
In 2011, Nherera initiated a civil lawsuit against Shah, claimingUS400,000indamagesformaliciousarrest,prosecution,andimprisonment.Afteraseriesoflegaltwistsandturns,theHighCourtultimatelyawardedNhereraUS30,000 for malicious prosecution and US$100,000 for wrongful arrest and detention, with the total payable in local currency at the prevailing rate.
Shah appealed the damages award to the Supreme Court on seven grounds, arguing that the decision violated his constitutional rights, including the right to a fair hearing (Section 69(2)) and the right to equal protection under the law (Section 56(1)).
The Constitutional Court's decision now clears the path for Shah to argue these constitutional violations before the country's highest judicial body.
Leave Comments