Former Hwedza Rural District Council chief executive officer, John Kundeya has successfully sued the local authority for malicious prosecution, with the High Court ordering the council to pay him US$15 000 in damages following his arrest and prosecution over a dispute linked to employment benefits.
In a judgment delivered by Justice Joel Mambara, the court found that the council played a central role in initiating criminal proceedings against Kundeya despite there being no genuine criminal issue requiring investigation.
“The council was the moving force behind the complaint. There was no genuine unresolved criminal question left,” ruled Justice Mambara.
The dispute stemmed from disagreements over employment conditions and mileage allowances paid to Kundeya during his tenure as chief executive officer.
The court heard that the payments were made through established council procedures and were supported by council resolutions as well as official correspondence concerning his entitlement to mileage benefits.
Evidence presented before the court showed that council resolutions had approved mileage benefits for Kundeya and that subsequent correspondence converted those benefits into a fixed monthly payment arrangement.
An audit report later raised concerns over the payments and recommended recovery measures, prompting the council to report the matter to the police.
In assessing the claim, Justice Mambara noted that the law required proof that the council had instituted or set in motion the prosecution, that the criminal proceedings had terminated in Kundeya’s favour, that there was no reasonable and probable cause for the prosecution, and that the council acted with malice.
The court found that these requirements had been satisfied.
Justice Mambara said the council had selectively presented information to law enforcement authorities while disregarding relevant labour rulings that had already addressed the matter.
“Selective presentation of an audit exception to the police, coupled with suppression or feigned ignorance of the labour rulings, is precisely the kind of conduct that takes a case out of the protected zone of a bona fide complaint,” he said.
The judge found that council records, resolutions, correspondence and prior labour proceedings demonstrated that there was no reasonable basis for pursuing criminal charges against Kundeya.
On the issue of malice, the court ruled that the criminal process had been used improperly following the labour dispute.
“There remained only an institutional desire not to pay, or at least to pressure the plaintiff into submission by the terror and indignity of criminal prosecution,” Justice Mambara said.
The court further held that the council’s actions directly resulted in Kundeya’s arrest and prosecution, noting that the local authority was not merely a passive provider of information but actively drove the complaint that led to criminal proceedings.
As a result, the High Court awarded Kundeya US$5 000 for unlawful arrest and deprivation of liberty and a further US$10 000 for malicious prosecution.
The court also ordered the council to pay interest from the date of service of summons together with the costs of the suit.
