harare24dmin By Nicholas F. Ncube
If ignorance were a currency, Wicknell Chivhayo’s critics would be billionaires. For years, they have screeched “fraud” and “theft,” parading their illiteracy as though it were legal expertise. We are back at the ZESA magetsi topic because Wicknell bought ambulances, gave ZANU-PF Provinces a total of 1 Million USD among several other things and oh boy that got some people livid. Some of the angry ones are politicians yet they have never donated even a teaspoon or a litter bin to their constituency.
They have done nothing for no one just hashtags, accents and smiles.
Unfortunately for them, courts do not run on vibes, twitter likes or emotions let alone pub talk — they run on law and facts. And the law spoke loudly and clearly through competent judges: Chivhayo did not steal mari ye magetsi. ZESA bungled. Case closed. I know this statement goes against the propaganda you have been fed but the legal facts carried the day.
Let’s try again, slowly, for those allergic to comprehension:
1. ZESA drafted the contract (contra proferentem). The law says ambiguities must be interpreted against the drafter. ZESA’s own contract became its legal noose.
2. ZESA extended deadlines (pacta sunt servanda). Agreements must be kept. ZESA signed Addendum 1, waiving strict timelines, then hypocritically accused Chivhayo of breaching them.
3. ZESA blocked bank guarantees and financing (exceptio non adimpleti contractus). A party cannot demand performance while preventing it. ZESA was the obstacle, not Chivhayo.
4. ZESA enjoyed the benefit of pre-commencement works (quantum meruit). Feasibility studies and other key steps where taken and funded by Chivhayo. ZESA received Value. Value received cannot be called theft. ZESA got work done, yet still cried foul.
5. ZESA sabotaged performance deliberately (dolus malus). Malicious intent to frustrate, not dishonesty by Chivhayo, is what the court found.
6. Performance was legally deemed complete (fictional fulfillment). If one party prevents fulfillment, the law deems the condition met. ZESA blocked the deal, so the law treated it as fulfilled.
7. Prior rulings were procedural, not substantive (res judicata). The Supreme Court never ruled against Chivhayo on the merits. Critics shouting “final judgment” are just whistling in the dark.
8. Deadlines were waived by conduct (waiver). ZESA extended terms and acted inconsistently. They cannot benefit from their own duplicity.
9. ZESA’s witness lacked authority (locus standi). Their star witness was not even the accounting officer. Imagine trying to build a fraud case with a legally irrelevant witness.
The matter when weighed on the scales of justice and facts becomes clear that every principle screams the same conclusion: ZESA bungled. Chivhayo did not steal anything from ZESA. It is a contractual dispute and ZESA WAS IN THE WRONG.
Those accusing Chivhayo of fraud on ZESA issue need to understand that fraud requires dishonesty. Theft requires unlawful taking. Neither was found. Neither happened. Instead, the High Court upheld fundamental doctrines of contract law, and ZESA lost on every count.
And yet, the gallery of gossip and shebeen talk persists. Some people seem to think Twitter threads are evidence and WhatsApp rumors are cross-examination. Perhaps they confuse hashtags with principles of law.
To those still howling “money was stolen” “mari yedu ye magetsi”: kindly stop wasting oxygen. You are not exposing Chivhayo; you are exposing yourselves — as legally daft, factually barren, and intellectually bankrupt.
You may dislike the man, you may envy him, but facts do not bend to feelings. The courts exonerated him. The law vindicated him. The rest is just noise from people who should be sentenced to remedial reading. Majaira kuverenga ma meme muchisiya legal documents because they are long and require thinkers ka.
The real scandal is not Chivhayo’s conduct — it is ZESA’s breathtaking incompetence and the intellectual poverty of those still pointing fingers. The truth is simple: Wicknell Chivhayo was vilified for ZESA’s failures. Luckily ZESA cleaned house and there are competent and capable people in charge.
So let this be written clearly, in letters too large for even the wilfully blind to miss: there was no fraud, no theft, and no criminal case. Those who persist in claiming otherwise should perhaps sue their schools for malpractice — because it takes a special kind of education to be this confidently wrong.
Class dismissed, oh sorry zviya it was meant to be a love letter to a lawyer not named Fadzayi Mahere.
