THE High Court in Bulawayo has dismissed a US$204,800 damages claim filed by a former Zimbabwe National Army (ZNA) captain over alleged malicious prosecution and wrongful incarceration.
Solomon Ndlovu had sued Osfael Mazibuko and Dennis Ndlovu for damages arising from his arrest, prosecution, and imprisonment following a criminal case involving a Toyota vehicle he claimed to have lawfully acquired through an exchange agreement involving an ox.
He sought damages for the alleged loss of houses, cattle, tractors, and pension benefits, as well as family breakdown and reputational harm, after serving one year and eight months in prison following a conviction in the criminal matter.
In judgment HB 64/26, delivered by Bulawayo High Court judge Justice Mpokiseng Dube, the court held that Ndlovu failed to establish that the defendants improperly influenced police, prosecutors, or the courts after reporting an alleged theft of a motor vehicle.
According to the judgment, Ndlovu testified that while serving as a captain and chaplain at the Mbalabala School of Infantry (now Lookout Masuku Barracks), he became involved in a conservancy project in Mwenezi under Haigwari Safaris.
He told the court that Mazibuko joined the conservancy venture as an investor and later agreed to exchange a non-functional Toyota vehicle for one ox.
Ndlovu said he later stripped the vehicle for parts after failing to repair it, only to be arrested about a year later on theft allegations.
Ndlovu also alleged that a state security agent, identified as Arsenal Mutezo, exerted influence over police officers, prosecutors, and magistrates during the criminal process.
- Revisiting Majaivana’s last show… ‘We made huge losses’
- Edutainment mix: The nexus of music and cultural identity
- Fresh land invasions hit Whitecliff
- ChiTown acting mayor blocks election
Keep Reading
However, the defendants denied any malicious conduct, arguing that the vehicle had merely been loaned to Ndlovu and that the agreement of sale relied upon by the plaintiff contained forged signatures.
The defendants maintained that they simply made a police report and allowed authorities to handle the matter independently.
During cross-examination, Ndlovu conceded that, apart from reporting the matter and attending court proceedings, the defendants did nothing further to influence the prosecution.
Dube said this admission severely weakened the plaintiff's case.
"The plaintiff's claim fails with costs," ruled the judge.
The court also criticised the quality of the plaintiff's pleadings, saying his legal papers failed to properly distinguish between different categories of damages. Justice Dube said the pleadings bundled together claims for property loss, emotional suffering, pension loss, and family breakdown without properly setting out the legal basis and quantification for each claim.
The judge noted that some of the figures presented in oral testimony did not even correspond with the amounts claimed in the summons.
The court reaffirmed that a successful malicious prosecution claim requires proof that defendants did more than merely report a complaint to the police.
The judgment stated that once police investigate, prosecutors decide to prosecute, and courts convict, those processes act as safeguards confirming the reasonableness of the original complaint, unless improper influence is proven.
