DISTRIBUTED BY VERITAS TRUST Tel: [263] [4] 794478 Fax & Messages [263] [4] 793592 E-mail: veritas@mango.zw Veritas makes every effort to ensure the provision of reliable information, but cannot take legal responsibility for information supplied. Judgment No. SC 36/18 Civil Appeal No. SC 279/16 “Our instructions are that on or about 29th July 2014, either acting on your own initiative and/or the behest of the Zimbabwe Anti-Corruption Commission you caused our client to surrender two vehicles namely; 2.1 Isuzu KB 300 D-Tech Registration number ABE 9841 black in colour. 2.2 Mercedes Benz ML 350, Registration number ABE 0089 Metallic Blue in colour. We are instructed that the said two motor vehicles were issued to our client as part of his conditions of service, which renders your intervention in this matter highly questionable as the vehicles in question were not seized pursuant to any known criminal investigation by your office. We are further instructed that you had no legal right to dispossess our client of the vehicles in question as our client’s contract of employment with the Commission still subsists and has not lawfully been terminated. Whilst we have been made aware of a purported recall of our client our client regards the same as a legal nullity in terms of Zimbabwean labour law and Constitutional provisions. In light of the foregoing, our client is therefore entitled to full possession, use and enjoyment of the motor vehicles in question. We have therefore been instructed to demand as we hereby do, that you restore the two vehicles into our client’s possession on or before the 21st November 2014 failing which we are under strict instructions to file a court application seeking appropriate remedies.” It cannot be gainsaid that the appellant did not act as threatened in the letter. No action was in fact taken against the Officer Commanding CID Homicide, who was in fact the same Majachani who witnessed the execution of the indemnity form signed by the appellant. What is critical in my view is that no imputation of illegality on the part of Majachani is made in the letter referred to above. The legal practitioners make no reference to the heavily armed police force that allegedly descended upon the appellant. In relation to the deprivation of possession of the vehicles, the legal practitioners alleged that Majachani caused the appellant to surrender the vehicles. There is no allegation of force or illegality on the part of the police to make him surrender them. 10