By Simbarashe Sithole
A Guruve farmer, Andrew Brice Gordon Francis, has lodged a formal complaint with the Judicial Service Commission (JSC), seeking an investigation into what he describes as contradictory procedural developments in a High Court dispute involving his agricultural joint venture partner, Chomatt Enterprises (Private) Limited.
Francis, who operates Chikonyora Estate in Guruve, is questioning the handling of High Court case number HCH 3522/26 after the same application was reportedly granted in chambers before being set down for another hearing and subsequently cancelled shortly before proceedings were due to begin.
In a letter dated November 8, 2026, addressed to the JSC secretary, Francis requested an administrative investigation into the issuing of the court order by Justice Chidziva on October 28, the subsequent hearing notice and the cancellation of the November 4 hearing.
He said the developments had created uncertainty over the procedural status of the order and raised questions about transparency in the administration of the case.
“I respect the independence and authority of the Judiciary. My complaint is not intended to invite the Judicial Service Commission to substitute its judgment for that of the High Court on the legal merits of the application,” Francis said.
The dispute stems from a Joint Venture Agreement between Francis and Chomatt Enterprises concerning agricultural operations at Chikonyora Estate.
Although the agreement provided for a 10-year contractual period, Francis argues that Clause 1(h) allowed either party to cancel it by giving a season’s written notice, taking into account crops already planted and other farming considerations.
Through his lawyers, Maruwa Machanzi Attorneys, Francis reportedly issued a cancellation notice on June 30, 2025, giving Chomatt the entire 2025/2026 farming season to vacate the property.
However, Chomatt disputed the termination and subsequently approached the High Court seeking an order designating the Commercial Arbitration Centre (CAC) as the appointing authority for an arbitrator to resolve the dispute.
Francis opposed the application, arguing that Clause 14 of their agreement provided for an amicable settlement, referral to the responsible minister and, ultimately, arbitration under the Arbitration Act.
He further argued that the agreement did not specifically designate CAC as the appointing authority.
However, in an order dated October 28, Justice Chidziva granted the application and designated CAC as the appointing authority responsible for appointing an arbitrator to determine the dispute between the parties.
Francis said his lawyers requested written reasons for the ruling on October 30 to establish the legal basis for the decision.
The request was acknowledged by the court through the Integrated Electronic Case Management System (IECMS).
However, on the same day, a notice of hearing was issued indicating that the same application would be heard and determined physically by Justice Chidziva on November 4 at noon.
Francis said the development was confusing because the court had already issued an order granting the application.
Meanwhile, Chomatt’s lawyers, Gill, Godlonton and Gerrans, reportedly forwarded the October 28 order to CAC on October 30, triggering the process of appointing an arbitrator.
In correspondence dated November 2, CAC chairman M A Masunda advised the parties that the centre intended to appoint an arbitrator directly from its pool of potential candidates.
CAC also requested an administration fee of US$800, ordinarily shared equally between the parties.
Francis’ lawyers subsequently asked CAC to suspend the appointment process pending the November 4 court hearing, arguing that the purpose and status of the scheduled proceedings remained unclear.
However, at approximately 10.15am on November 4, less than two hours before the scheduled hearing, Francis received an IECMS notification advising that the hearing had been cancelled.
No reasons were provided for the cancellation.
Following the development, Maruwa Machanzi Attorneys wrote to the High Court registrar, requesting clarification on the circumstances surrounding the original order, the subsequent hearing notice and its cancellation.
The lawyers also sought an update on the outstanding request for written reasons.
Francis said the court acknowledged receipt of the letter and confirmed that it had been placed before Justice Chidziva, but no substantive explanation had been received by the time he lodged his complaint.
He said he was not alleging misconduct or improper motives by any judicial officer but wanted the administrative circumstances surrounding the developments established.
Among other issues, he wants the JSC to establish who authorised the November 4 hearing, whether it was scheduled following a judicial direction or through an administrative process, and why it was cancelled shortly before commencement.
He also wants the commission to facilitate an appropriate explanation of the procedural developments and establish the status of his outstanding requests for written reasons.
“I am not seeking preferential treatment or to obstruct lawful arbitration. I ask only that proceedings affecting my rights be administered consistently, transparently and in accordance with the law,” he said.
Francis acknowledged that the JSC could not overturn a judicial order through an administrative complaint, saying any challenge to the ruling would have to be pursued through the appropriate legal channels.
The complaint was accompanied by copies of the court order, hearing notice, cancellation notification, correspondence between the parties’ lawyers and CAC, and the joint venture agreement.
The Judicial Service Commission’s response to the complaint was not included in the documents supplied.