The Supreme Court Friday dismissed an application for appeal by a faction of the Knowe Residents and Ratepayers Association in Norton who wanted to have the Edward Nyanyiwa Jnr jailed for contempt of court on behalf of his father.
Edward Nyanyiwa Jnr is son to late real estate mogul Edward Nyanyiwa, popularly known as Eddies Pfugari.
The camp had earlier approached the High Court and sued Pfugari for failing to service its land by not putting proper drainage systems with roads in the specified areas not properly tarred.
They further submitted that sanitary systems were not connected.
Pfugari estate was given 90 days by the High Court to comply with the order.
But the senior Nyanyiwa passed on before executing the order and this forced the residents to approach the courts for recourse.
The appeal by the residents followed a judgment delivered by High Court judge David Mangota who dismissed their application with costs saying the late Nyanyiwa had been sued in his individual capacity and his estate had nothing to do with issues that existed between the parties.
In their application, the residents had cited Eddies Pfugari (Pvt) Ltd, Nyanyiwa Jnr, the late Nyanyiwa’s estate executor Clever Mandizvidza, Norton Town Council as respondents.
After the dismissal by the High Court, the residents then approached the Supreme Court arguing Mangota erred by proceeding to hear arguments after it had already stated that it was going to dismiss the matter.
The Supreme Court however upheld Mangota’s judgment saying the matter had been conclusively dealt with by the courts and could not be re-opened in the manner with which the applicant was seeking to do.
“The sentences which the applicant moved the court to met out to the late Nyanyiwa were duly imposed on each. The applicant cannot revisit the crime of contempt of court as against the first respondent as it is doing in casu.
“That matter was conclusively dealt with. It cannot therefore be reopened in the manner which the applicant is seeking to do in this application,” Supreme Court ruled.
The Supreme Court ruled that the residents did not explain in their application why they joined the first respondent to the application saying it should have filed against the second respondent only.
“The applicant does not proffer a satisfactory explanation of why it sued the third respondent Mandizvidza. The applicant citation of Mandizvidza without any justification exposes the confusion with which it processed this application.
“It makes a mockery of the justice for the applicant to suggest that Nyanyiwa who has no constraints placed upon him by the High Court should be declared to be guilty of contempt of court. The applicant cannot state it proved any contempt against Nyanyiwa on a balance of probability let alone beyond a reasonable doubt,” reads the judgment.