HUMAN rights lawyer Beatrice Mtetwa and Tawanda Nyambirai’s law firm has issued summons to former clerk, Tendayi Satarawu Murambiza who admitted to embezzling US$128 000 from the law firm.
Murambiza had allegedly promised to reimburse the funds before he became evasive.
In their application at the High Court, the applicants, Mtetwa, Nyambirai, Mzokuthula Mbuyisa and Douglas Coltart cited Murambiza, Perpetua Shora and Cade Shonhiwa Zvavanjanja as respondents.
It is alleged that sometime in February, this year, Murambiza was charged with theft of US$128 000 from the law firm’s trust account.
He signed an agreement acknowledging liability, which then prompted the law firm to withdraw the charges against him. He pledged to surrender various assets to the law firm, a property in Kambuzuma, unfinished house in Domboshawa, two vehicles, 43 heads of cattle and US$15 210.
He authorised the lawyers to sell the assets.
However, after a buyer was found for the Kambuzuma property, Murambiza refused to co-operate and wrote to the Registrar of Deeds March 11, 2022 advising that his property had been advertised for sale without his knowledge.
This prompted the law firm to issue summons for Murambiza and his wife who had guaranteed the repayment of the debt.
- Letter to my people: The million-man marches are back
- Letter to my people: The million-man marches are back
- Village Rhapsody: Marry Mubaiwa abuse: A stain on our conscience
- Village Rhapsody: Marry Mubaiwa abuse: A stain on our conscience
Keep Reading
They are defending the summons despite having told the Law Society of Zimbabwe, through an affidavit that they were admitting liability for the missing funds.
In another affidavit, Murambiza told the High Court that the law firm is fighting over US$57 000 found in a safe after former professional associate Mark Rujuwa had claimed to have left the money with him for safekeeping without the partners’ knowledge.
The law firm submitted that Murambiza’s characterisation of attempts to sell the Kambuzuma property as fraudulent came as a surprise as they had applied for a summary judgment, which is a procedure whereby a litigant is allowed to get a judgment without giving oral evidence.
The matter is pending before the High Court.
