High Court nullifies Frank Buyanga’s fraudulent deal
THE High Court has nullified a fraudulent deal orchestrated by businessman Frank Buyanga, exposing a web of deceit involving fake documents, illegal property transfers and a sham agreement.
Justice Gladys Mhuri ruled that the simulated agreement of sale and subsequent transactions were fraudulent, declaring them void and ordering the restoration of property ownership to the rightful parties.
The deal began in December 2008 when the first plaintiff, David Muchinguri, borrowed US$20 000 from the second defendant, Zimcor Trustees Ltd.
However, since Zimcor was not a registered money lender in Zimbabwe, the parties entered into a fake agreement of sale to cover up the loan, pretending to sell the entire shareholding of Sagnol International (Pvt) Ltd, valued at ZWL1 trillion.
This sham arrangement paved the way for Buyanga, the first defendant, to fabricate documents, fraudulently transfer shares, and use a fake Capital Gains Tax Clearance Certificate to sell Stand 1860 Marlborough Township to Cont River Investment (Pvt) Ltd, the third defendant.
Justice Mhuri, in her ruling, stressed that fraud cannot give rise to legal rights or obligations.
“If an act is void, then it is in law a nullity,” she said, quoting Lord Denning.
She further cited Justice Rita Makarau’s precedent that “nothing legal can flow from a fraud.”
The court dismissed the third defendant’s plea that the claims were time-barred under the Prescription Act, ruling that fraud is not subject to prescription.
“The agreement of sale was rooted in dishonesty and deceit and therefore a fraud,” said Justice Mhuri. “A fraud is a nullity and therefore cannot prescribe.”
The judgment restores the ownership of Stand 1860 Marlborough Township to Sagnol International (Pvt) Ltd and nullifies the fraudulent transactions.
The Registrar of Deeds was directed to reverse the transfer of ownership.
Buyanga, along with Zimcor Trustees Ltd and Cont River Investment, was ordered to bear the costs of the reversal and legal proceedings.
The judgment exposes Buyanga’s activities as calculated attempts to exploit legal loopholes and defraud victims under the guise of legitimate business.
His failure to defend the claims in court further underscored the baselessness of his actions.
Legal experts commenting on the ruling said fraudulent schemes, no matter how elaborate, remain void at law and cannot stand in the face of justice. Herald
