By Nigel Pfunde
HARARE – In a decisive ruling that shows the primacy of documentary evidence in commercial disputes, the Harare Magistrates Court this week acquitted property developer Leon Zvarevashe and his co-accused, Nyasha Mhuru after the State failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the complainant had been tricked into selling her Hillside property,reports Express Mail Zim.
The two had stood accused of fraud stemming from a transaction that occurred on 6 February 2023. Prosecutors had alleged that the pair misled complainant Debra Mullin into believing she was signing paperwork for a US$50,000 loan agreement, when in fact she was affixing her signature to a contract of sale for her house valued at approximately US$250 000.
Throughout the trial, both accused maintained their innocence, insisting that the transaction was a legitimate sale and not a loan arrangement disguised as a property transfer. The defence’s position was ultimately vindicated by the weight of the evidence on record.
The State paraded five witnesses and submitted several exhibits, including an audio recording purportedly made on the day the documents were signed. Mullin testified that she had understood her house was being used merely as collateral for a loan intended for her daughter, adding that she had been assured the agreement of sale was a mere formality that would never lead to an actual transfer of ownership.
According to Mullin, the parties had agreed on a US$30,000 loan, from which her daughter allegedly received US$20 000. She told the court that difficulties arose only when repayment stalled, prompting her to search for the accused before eventually lodging a complaint with the police.
The defence, however, presented an unequivocal counter-narrative. The first accused, Zvarevashe told the court that he is in the business of buying and selling houses and has never engaged in money lending. He produced a signed agreement of sale, acknowledgements of receipt of payment, a power of attorney authorising transfer of the property and title deed-related documents. His co-accused Mhuru, denied any role in a loan arrangement, stating that she had merely introduced the parties.
In its judgment, a copy of which has been seen by this publication, the court placed substantial reliance on the documentary evidence. The magistrate observed that multiple documents bearing the complainant’s signature consistently referred to a sale transaction and made no mention whatsoever of any loan agreement. The court further questioned why the complainant would sign acknowledgements confirming receipt of substantial sums including one acknowledgement for US$100 000, if she genuinely believed she was only securing a loan.
Ultimately, the court found that the State had failed to prove the essential element of misrepresentation, which is indispensable for a fraud conviction. The magistrate ruled that there was no credible evidence to establish that the accused persons had intentionally deceived the complainant into signing the agreement of sale. The acquittal stands as a reaffirmation that courts will not allow unsubstantiated claims to override clear, contemporaneous written contracts.
