Ex-Bodyguard Denies ZPRA Property Claims After Court Strikes Case Off Roll

A High Court ruling striking Nitram Holdings’ case off the roll leaves former VP Joshua Nkomo’s ex-bodyguard Frederick Mutanda claiming victory in the long-disputed ownership of Bulawayo’s Geddes Building (image source)

BULAWAYO — A long-running ownership battle over the Geddes Building in central Bulawayo has taken another twist after the High Court struck off a case filed by ZPRA-linked Nitram Holdings, leaving Frederick Charles Moses Mutanda — a former bodyguard to the late Dr. Joshua Nkomo — claiming vindication against allegations that he unlawfully occupies assets tied to the Zimbabwe People’s Revolutionary Army (ZPRA).

The litigation, rooted in disputed post-independence property seizures of the 1980s, centred on who holds lawful title to the landmark property along George Silundika Avenue. Nitram Holdings, which represents ZPRA’s commercial interests, sought to reclaim the building, arguing it was among liberation war assets wrongfully alienated decades ago. However, Justice Bongani Ndlovu struck the case off the roll on procedural grounds, effectively pausing Nitram’s claim and leaving the substantive ownership question unresolved.

Mutanda, who has managed or occupied the building for years, hailed the court’s decision as confirmation of his lawful standing. Speaking to reporters, he dismissed the claims as “politically motivated” and “unsupported by credible documentation.” He vowed to defend his position and accused certain parties of exploiting historical grievances for personal or political gain.

Representatives of ZPRA veterans and Nitram Holdings expressed disappointment at the outcome, saying they would review the ruling and consider refiling the matter with corrected papers or appealing if viable grounds exist. Veteran groups maintain that numerous ZPRA-linked properties were unjustly confiscated and have campaigned for restitution and compensation over the years.

Legal analysts explained that a case being struck off does not equate to a final judgment on ownership but rather reflects procedural or technical deficiencies in filing. They noted that disputes involving liberation-era assets often require archival evidence, historical contracts, and political dialogue to untangle.

Observers say the controversy underscores the broader challenge of property restitution in Zimbabwe’s post-liberation context, where veterans’ claims often collide with current occupants’ interests and incomplete historical land records. For now, the Geddes Building remains under Mutanda’s control, while Nitram weighs its legal options — prolonging uncertainty over one of Bulawayo’s most symbolic urban assets.