Cleric Prophet Tapiwa Freddy has escalated his protracted land dispute with Craft Properties (Pvt) Ltd to the High Court, following the collapse of criminal charges he had initiated against the company and its founder, Kudakwashe Taruberekera. The matter, which has attracted significant public attention since early this year, has now entered a new phase as Freddy seeks a declaratory order to assert ownership of a disputed 4,000-square-metre plot in Kadoma.
The property in question, Plot No. 7510 Subdivision 5, Mandalay of Sabonabona Farm, is at the centre of the legal wrangle. Prophet Freddy claims the land was lawfully donated to him, a position that has been contested by Craft Properties. Earlier this year, the cleric approached the Zimbabwe Anti-Corruption Commission (ZACC), accusing Taruberekera and the company of corruption following what he described as the unlawful revocation of the donation. The allegations led to Taruberekera’s arrest, and the matter initially appeared before the Chinhoyi Magistrates’ Court on February 7, 2025.
The case began as a fraud charge but was later modified to theft. The proceedings were repeatedly postponed and eventually moved to the Kadoma Magistrates’ Court, where hearings stretched between March and July. Prophet Freddy reportedly attended court only once, requesting a postponement during his sole appearance. After months of delays and insufficient evidence, the State withdrew the case on July 17, conceding that the revocation of a deed of donation did not constitute a criminal offence.
“Finally, the State withdrew the case against me and Craft Properties after failing to gather any evidence,” Taruberekera said, lamenting the reputational damage caused. “This matter dragged both my name and that of my company through the mud.”
Prophet Freddy Changes Position After Criminal Charges Are Dropped
Despite the collapse of the criminal proceedings, Freddy has now filed a civil declaration in the High Court (Civil Division) on December 5, 2025, seeking to assert his ownership of the disputed land. In the filing, he alleged that the property was fraudulently transferred following the original donation. Freddy contends that all subsequent transfers — from the plaintiff to the first defendant, then to the second defendant, and later to the fourth, fifth, and sixth defendants — were carried out without his knowledge or consent, and were allegedly predicated on an initial fraudulent act by the seventh defendant.
According to Freddy, he remains the lawful owner of the property under a valid deed of donation. He argues that any transfers executed without his consent were invalid, nullifying any claim by third parties. He further asserts that there is a genuine and ongoing dispute over rightful ownership, giving him a direct and substantial interest in obtaining a declaratory order from the High Court.
Invoking Section 14 of the High Court Act [Chapter 7:06], Freddy is asking the court to declare that he is the lawful owner of Plot No. 7510 Subdivision 5, and that the deed of donation executed on or about November 19, 2019, is valid, binding, and extant. He also seeks a declaration that all transfers registered after November 22, 2019, are null and void, and has asked the court to order the seventh defendant to update its records to reflect him as the sole registered owner.
Craft Properties has disputed Freddy’s claims, maintaining that the donation was lawfully revoked due to non-compliance with development conditions attached to the land. Taruberekera further questioned Freddy’s decision to bypass traditional civil channels and report the matter directly to ZACC.
“Freddy was very much aware that we had revoked the stand,” Taruberekera said. “When we revoked it, he immediately stopped paying council bills. That cannot be a coincidence. If he believed he had a genuine claim, he should have sued the company. Instead, criminal processes were used, and when those failed, the matter was moved to the High Court.”
The case has reignited discussions within legal circles regarding ZACC’s mandate and the appropriate use of public institutions in private disputes. Analysts have noted that officials travelled to Freddy’s church, Goodness and Mercy Ministries in Glen View, to record his statement, while other parties were summoned to ZACC offices in Chinhoyi, raising questions about consistency and procedure. Some observers have described the progression from criminal prosecution to civil litigation as potential forum shopping.
With the High Court having referred the matter to trial on November 26, 2025, the dispute will now be resolved after evidence is presented. Legal experts suggest the case could set important precedents regarding the interplay between criminal law and civil remedies, as well as the legal principles governing the revocation of donations in Zimbabwe.
As the saga unfolds, the dispute serves as a cautionary tale about the complexities surrounding land ownership, property rights, and the use of regulatory bodies in private conflicts. Both Prophet Freddy and Craft Properties await a judicial determination that will clarify ownership and, potentially, the broader legal framework for land donations in the country.
Source- Byo24
