Harare Property Row: A Tale of Unpaid Cash, Shaky Titles and a Missed Chance at Fair Play
By Guest Contributor
When Newsday Zimbabwe ran the headline “Harare woman sells house, refuses to vacate” (https://www.newsday.co.zw/southerneye/local-news/article/200028160/harare-woman-sells-house-refuses-to-vacate ) on June 12, it sparked a flurry of comments – many of them assuming the story was cut‑and‑dry. The truth, according to a formal rebuttal from the aggrieved seller, is a lot messier.
The article paints Judith Musamadiya as a seller who simply walked away after pocketing the money. In reality, the sale hinged on a final payment of US $1 600 that never arrived.
When the buyer, Memory Madzimbamuto, missed the deadline, Musamadiya was within her rights to pause the transaction. The contract, not a loose handshake, gave her that leverage.
Newsday says Musamadiya “refused” to accept the balance. No court record shows that Madzimbamuto ever offered the money in good faith or within the agreed window. Musamadiya’s stance has consistently been that the payment either never materialised or was offered outside the terms of the agreement – a scenario that would make the contract voidable.
Even while the payment dispute simmered, the property’s title was transferred. The article glovers over this, but the transfer happened before the parties resolved their differences and without Musamadiya’s full consent. In other words, the new deed was born under a cloud of contestation.
The story claims Musamadiya was lawfully evicted and later forced back in.
Musamadiya says she never received proper notice of eviction and was denied a chance to defend herself in court. The sheriff’s return of service, cited by the newspaper, masks procedural flaws that courts have flagged in similar cases.
Justice Maxwell Takuva found Musamadiya in contempt, but the judge suspended the sentence, signalling that the offence was not grave enough for immediate jail.
Crucially, the ruling does not erase Musamadiya’s underlying contractual claims, which remain alive for civil action.
Newsday’s piece leans heavily on the buyer’s side, leaving out the contractual and procedural quirks that Musamadiya’s legal team points out. A balanced report would have consulted both parties or dug into court transcripts to give readers a fuller picture.
Musamadiya is pressing on with every legal avenue available to protect her property rights. She has asked Newsday to issue a correction that reflects the points above and to exercise greater care in future reporting.
In the tangled world of Harare real estate, where cash can be as elusive as a court order, this dispute reminds us that headlines often hide more than they reveal. Until the courts have their say, the house on Kuwadzana remains a contested piece of Zimbabwe’s urban puzzle.
