Zimbabwean High Court Justice Never Katiyo is caught in the eye of a storm of controversy over accusations of delivering a judgement which lawyers say borders on fraud and criminality in a case that has not yet been argued before him as hearing is set for September, with an interlocutory application still pending.
An interlocutory application is a request made to a court during a pending legal case – not to resolve the main matter – but to address procedural or interim issues that need to be decided before the final judgement.
Katiyo is also accused of citing legal counsel submissions in his judgement that “were not and have never been made” in the case, rendering his ruling brazenly fraudulent and fake.
The case involves Technoimpex JSC, a state-owned Bulgarian company, dealing in real estate in Zimbabwe and a Harare man Rajendrakumar Jogi and six others accused of fraud over a residential properties deal.
Katiyo has been handling the matter since October last year, although the case dates back to 2017 for deals which happened in 2013.
Many court sittings on the case, which has interlocutory issues, have been held.
The current scandal exploded into the public domain after Technoimpex JSC lawyers wrote to Advocate Thabani Mpofu to ask if he had appeared before Katiyo for a case set down for hearing on 15 September 2025.
Katiyo’s judgement, whose hearing has no date, has a Registrar High Court stamp dated 28 July 2025.
On 30 July 2025, Sinyoro and Partners wrote to Mpofu making an enquiry:
“Dear Advocate,
TECHNOIMPEX JSC VS RAIENDRAKUMAR JOGI AND SIX OTHERS -Case NO.HCH6784/191.
We refer to the above matter.
“We uplifted judgment in this matter yesterday issued by the Honourable Mr Justice Katiyo, discharging the provisional order and striking the matter offthe roll.”
The judgment does not mention a date of hearing, but bears the Registrarstamp dated 28 July 2025.
The same judgment mentions that there was appearance by T. Mpofu for theApplicant, D. Sanhanga for the First respondent and L. Uriri for the Second and third respondents. Attached hereto is the judgment for ease of reference.
We are not aware of the said appearance and therefore write to enquire whenyou appeared and on whose instruction.”
On the same day, Mpofu also wrote to the Registrar High Court registering his dismay and grave concern over the issue, particularly false claims that he had appeared before Katiyo and made submissions on behalf of Technoimpex.
Mpofu wrote:
“Kindly place this letter before KATIYO J.
A judgment was rendered by his lordship on the 28th of July 2025 in the matter of Technoimpex JSC v Jogi & Ors HCH6784/19.
The judgment makes the claim that I appeared before his lordship and effectively attributes certain submissions to me.
It is obviously not true that I appeared before his lordship and made those submissions. In my view, the judgment is totally made up.
Distressingly, this is not the first time in this dispute that his lordship has attributed submissions to me that I never made in the course of determining matters that were never argued before him.
What is of greater concern is that I am aware that the matter in which this judgment has now been produced is set down for argument on the 15th of September 2025.
The judgment of the 28th of July 2025 is accordingly a clear irregularity.
The reason I have been forced to write this letter is that Sinyoro & Partners, the legal practitioners for Technoimpex have now required me, in writing and copying the Law Society, to explain why my name appears in the judgment when they never instructed me to appear before his lordship.”
Again on the same day, Sinyoro and Partners lawyers met with Katiyo to resolve the issue, but the judge insisted lawyers had appeared before him and made the disputed submissions before his judgement.
Alarmed and riled by Katiyo’s insistence, Sinyoro and Partners escalated the to issue to the Judicial Service Commission through a letter to its secretary Walter Chikwana dated 31 July 2025, saying Katiyo’s conduct bordered on criminality.
“We are seriously concerned that the improprieties involved sail perilously closeto criminality and are astounded at the conduct of the Honourable Judge. Hisinsistence that there was an appearance before him when it is objectively impossible for there to have been such an appearance is gravely worrisome.
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 ourclient has expended a foftune trying to undo.
It is unfathomable that Jogi andHwingwiri could perpetrate all these illegalities without the assurance of assistance.
The conduct of the honourable Judge complained of constitutes inour view such assistance and does not seem to reflect commitment to the judicial oath of office.
It is clear to us that the discharge of the protection accorded our client without a hearing is by design.
It is a response to due process which was seen as an impediment.
The fact that the judge has spurned the opportunity to correctmatters puts that beyond all doubt.
There is in our view a set intention to defeat our client in its just rights, explaining why this is the second time that a judgment has been rendered onissues not argued.
The judge seems to be in a hurry to achieve a ceftain resulteven ignoring sentiments expressed by the Supreme Court.
In light of the above, we respectfully implore the administrative authority ofthe Judicial Service Commission to urgently investigate the conduct of theHonourable Judge.
It has the effect, in our view, of putting the judiciary into disrepute.
It does not help matters that foreign interests are involved and are imperilled by what seems to us to be judicial impropriety.”
The letter was copied to various stakeholders, including chief Justice Luke Malaba, High Judge President Justice Mary Zimba-Dube and the Law Society of Zimbabwe.
Newshawks
