New twist on Airport Road court case


A High Court judge has conditionally given a subsidiary of Augur Investments a chance to defend itself, in a case where a settlement deed saw Harare City Council handing over land for the Harare Road construction project Harare Airport.

The High Court judge, Judge Munangati-Munongwa, allowed Doorex to note an appearance to defend himself, but ordered him to pay a higher fee so he could defend himself in the case filed by Fairclot, acting as Trucking and Construction (T&C) last April. year.

T&C, which was contracted by Augur Investments for the airport project, is seeking the cancellation of the deed of settlement between Harare City Council, the Department of Local Government and Augur Investments which saw the transfer of 273 hectares of land in the suburb of Borrowdale in Harare.

Doorex was named as the sixth defendant in the case because it owns the land, booth 654 Pomona, which was used as surety for the Airport Road deal by Augur Investments.

Title to the land is held in escrow by a local law firm, Coughlan, Welsh and Guest pending finalization of the lawsuit.

Fairclot cited Augur, its owner Ken Sharpe, its assistant Tatiana Aleshina, the City of Harare, the Department of Local Government, Doorex Properties, Registrar of Deeds and Deputy High Court Sheriff Mucduff Madega as first through eighth respondents.

President Emmerson Mnangagwa has been named as an interested party in the case.

Sharpe’s attorney, Evans Talent Moyo of Scanlen & Holderness, noted the appearance to defend the businessman, Aleshina and Augur Investments, but did not file a case on behalf of Doorex.

In allowing Doorex to file its defense, the judge noted that the company was part of the proceedings and if T&C wins the award, it can be challenged by Doorex on the grounds that it was excluded from the case.

Moyo had raised a special plea saying that Fairclot did not have the locus standi to challenge the settlement deed because it was not an interested party, but later found out that Doorex was not part of the proceedings.

Doorex was banned at that time and Moyo filed for the restriction to be lifted.

He said he was solely responsible for the error because he was instructed to defend all of the respondents.

Fairclot’s lawyer, Tendai Biti Law, had opposed the request on the grounds that the person who sent the email did not have a locus standi because he was not an employee of Doorex or a person appointed by Doorex.

T&C argues that land owned by Doorex is the only property owned by Sharpe that can be seized to collect its debt for the Airport Road project, as part of the land from the council agreement was transferred to various storage companies .

Related Topics


About Author

Comments are closed.