Matsika loses Supreme Court appeal on Croco shareholding

BUSINESSMAN Farai Matsika has lost his Supreme Court appeal on a High Court case where he was accused of fabricating documents in a bid to grab a 30% stake in Croco Holdings.

Matsika, who owns Faramatsi Motors, had filed a Supreme Court appeal challenging a High Court judgment by Justice Owen Tagu, who had ruled that he had fraudulently crafted documents stating that he owned Croco shares.

In challenging the High Court judgment, Matsika demanded that a forensic audit be done, and valuation of his partner Moses Chingwena’s sprawling empire of 40 entities.

In his judgment yesterday, Justice Chinembiri Bhunu said the court had considered all evidence and concluded that the documents relied upon by Matsika were forged and fraudulent.

“Both the shareholders’ agreement and the share transfer documents were adjudged to be fraudulent documents. It also found that ... the applicant was unable to explain two conflicting CR2 documents. Thus the court a

quo upheld both points in limine,” Justice Bhunu said.

“As evidence of the alleged admission, he filed a transcript of a long telephone conversation that he had with (Phibion) Gwatidzo. That transcript does not support his assertion that

Gwatidzo admitted preparing the disputed documents,” he said.

The ruling by the Supreme Court also came at a time when Matsika’s application was found to be riddled with material falsehoods, after the Baker Tilly founding partner, Gwatidzo, denied having prepared the shareholders’ agreement.

“It is axiomatic that the authenticity of the questioned document was premised on them having been signed by Gwatidzo, and (the latter’s) denial was fatal to the applicant’s case. It destroyed the whole foundation and basis of his case,” Justice Bhunu said.

Earlier, Chingwena had argued in his founding affidavit that Matsika had forged the shareholders agreement by superimposing his signature, and then photocopying it.

The court further ruled that the application was made after Matsika filed conflicting papers, with the first one showing Chingwena’s family trust as the owners, and another showing that he (Matsika) had a 30% stake.

“It is trite that if a litigant has given false evidence, his story will be discarded and the same adverse inference may be drawn as if he has not given evidence at all. The applicant’s deplorable unbecoming behaviour in manufacturing fraudulent documents to deceive the court, costs at the punitive scale,” Justice Bhunu added.