Controversial Rutendo Matinyarare, a well-known public figure, recently faced backlash for his absence during a court hearing. The Grain Millers Association of Zimbabwe had taken legal action against Matinyarare over some controversial posts he had made on social media. However, as Matinyarare failed to appear before the high court judge to defend himself, a default judgment was given in favor of the millers.
Naturally, Matinyarare was not pleased with the decision and took to WhatsApp groups to express his frustration. In his angry outburst, he labeled the court as a “kangaroo court” and questioned the legitimacy of the proceedings. He argued that his lawyers were only served with the court papers a day before the hearing and that there was no notice indicating that the case had been set down. Matinyarare further contended that urgent applications require engagement from both sides and should not be rushed.
Sources revealed that Matinyarare’s lawyer Advocate Simba Chitando had contacted one Chivizhe who is a lawyer representing the millers. Issues regarding the case and set down were discussed by the legal professionals who both understood an urgent application and the basis of the urgent application.
Businessman Mutumwa Mawere weighed in on the matter, highlighting that Matinyarare’s absence did not hinder the court from making a judgment. Mawere emphasized that the court based its decision on the facts presented by the millers’ legal representatives, noting that Matinyarare would need to approach the court to challenge or lift the judgment.
On the other hand, Matutu counterargued Mawere’s comments, suggesting that default judgments are issued by courts when parties do not agree or when one party feels aggrieved. Matutu acknowledged that it may seem humiliating for Matinyarare, particularly in the “political eye,” but he encouraged a deeper analysis of how and why the default judgment was issued.
Reiterating his stance, Mawere emphasized that regardless of how the judgment was reached, it held legal force and effect. He stressed that the remedy for Matinyarare would be to approach the courts to contest the decision.
In a show of contempt for the High Court Matinyarare has not removed the posts in question and continues on his quest to defame the millers, milling industry and food stuffs available in Zimbabwe.
The controversy surrounding Matinyarare’s absence during the court hearing and the subsequent labeling of the high court as a “kangaroo court” raises questions about his respect for the High Court. Is Rutendo a law unto himself and too special to appear before the courts and uphold their rulings?
