HARARE – A damning letter of complaint submitted to Zimbabwe’s Judicial Service Commission by legal representatives of Technoimpex JSC, a Bulgarian state-owned company, has sparked outrage in legal and diplomatic circles, raising serious concerns over the integrity of judicial processes involving foreign investors in Zimbabwe.
The complaint, dated July 31, 2025, and authored by law firm Sinyoro & Partners, levels severe allegations against Justice Never Katiyo of the Harare High Court. The Bulgarian firm alleges that the judge handed down a judgement on a matter that was never argued in court, thereby “aiding fraudsters” and violating fundamental principles of justice.
Technoimpex JSC has been embroiled in a years-long legal battle over ownership of a prime piece of real estate in Harare, known as Bath Mansions Flats at 32 Bath Road, Avondale—a property it claims to have owned since 1989.
The dispute, at its core, revolves around a fraudulent scheme allegedly orchestrated by Zimbabwean nationals Rajendrakumar Jogi and Sarah Hwingwiri, who are accused of using a locally incorporated “clone” company—Technoimpex JSC (Private) Limited—to illegally sell and transfer the foreign-owned property. A deed of transfer dated 2019 was executed in Jogi’s name, who later purported to sell the same property to a third party, Mustak Girach.
Technoimpex maintains that it never sold the property, never received payment, and was never consulted. It has since spent years in the courts seeking redress and the reversal of what it terms a “brazen act of fraud.
While the litigation has traversed various judicial forums, the most disturbing allegations arise from the conduct of Justice Katiyo, who presided over key proceedings in Case No. HCH6784/19 and HCH2524/22.
The firm alleges that Justice Katiyo issued a final judgement in HCH6784/19 — striking the matter from the roll and discharging a provisional order that had protected the property from further transfer — without any hearing ever taking place.
Even more alarmingly, the judgement refers to appearances by lawyers that never happened, according to both Technoimpex’s legal team and its lead counsel, Advocate Thabani Mpofu.
In the complaint, the lawyers said: “We are seriously concerned that the improprieties involved sail perilously close to criminality and are astounded at the conduct of the Honourable Judge. His insistence that there was an appearance before him when it is objectively impossible for there to have been such an appearance is gravely worrisome.”
The lawyers went further, explicitly connecting the judge’s actions to the broader fraud: “The conduct of the judge has to be viewed in the context of the nature of the dispute and the overall criminality that has been exhibited, against which our client has expended a fortune trying to undo. It is unfathomable that Jogi and Hwingwiri could perpetrate all these illegalities without the assurance of assistance. The conduct of the Honourable Judge complained of constitutes in our view such assistance and does not seem to reflect commitment to the judicial oath of office.”
The crux of the complaint is that Justice Katiyo issued judgements in two different matters without either of them being argued before him.
The matter in HCH6784/19 had been subject to several postponements. Technoimpex filed an interlocutory application to admit a supplementary affidavit proving its deponent’s authority to represent the company. That application was still pending when the judge issued a final ruling, without hearing the main case or the pending application.
The judgement also referenced oral arguments from lawyers, including Advocate Mpofu, which never took place. In response, Technoimpex’s lawyers wrote to Mpofu, who confirmed that he never appeared before the judge or made any such submissions. The law firm included both its letter and Mpofu’s response in the complaint.
Technoimpex alleges that when confronted, Justice Katiyo stuck to his claim that the matter had been heard — a position that the firm describes as “objectively impossible” given the official case management orders on file and the procedural history.
The complaint notes that when the dispute previously reached the Supreme Court, the judges remitted the matter back to the High Court for a hearing “on the merits,” and specifically instructed the lower court not to entertain further preliminary objections.
Yet, as the complaint argues, Justice Katiyo disregarded this directive, focusing instead on procedural technicalities that had already been settled — a move that appears to have directly benefited the alleged fraudsters.
This is not the first time the judge has been accused of misconduct in the same case. According to Technoimpex, this is now the second time that Justice Katiyo has issued a judgment on a matter that was never argued, while simultaneously failing to deliver judgement in a case that was argued nearly a year ago.
“We are extremely concerned that this is the second time in the same matter that the Judge has handed down Judgment on matters not argued before him, while neglecting to hand down judgement in HCH2524/22 which was argued on November 7, 2024, more than nine months ago.”
The pattern, they suggest, points to a deliberate strategy to undermine Technoimpex’s legal standing.
The implications of this complaint go far beyond the immediate property dispute. Technoimpex JSC is not just any private entity — it is a company with state ownership ties to the government of Bulgaria. Alongside its German-affiliated sister company, Bulchimex GmbH, Technoimpex has held assets in Zimbabwe for decades.
In the letter, Technoimpex’s legal team warns that judicial conduct of this kind risks tarnishing the reputation of Zimbabwe’s judiciary and discouraging foreign investment:
“It does not help matters that foreign interests are involved and are imperilled by what seems to us to be judicial impropriety.”
The law firm has formally requested the Judicial Service Commission to investigate Justice Katiyo, urging urgent action to restore credibility.
The lawyers copied their complaint to Chief Justice Luke Malaba, the Judge President, the Sheriff, and the Law Society of Zimbabwe.
The matter of whether the irregular judgement will be enforced remains unresolved. Technoimpex has called on the Sheriff of Zimbabwe not to participate in any execution of the disputed judgement pending a full investigation.
If the complaint is upheld, it could trigger disciplinary proceedings against a sitting judge.
But for Technoimpex, the stakes remain immediate and real: a prime Harare property, valued at over US$2 million, hangs in the balance, as does the company’s faith in Zimbabwe’s ability to protect foreign property rights through lawful process.
The post ‘Aiding a fraud’ – Bulgarian state firm accuses Zimbabwe judge of bias in explosive property dispute appeared first on Zimbabwe News Now.