THE High Court has acquitted top real estate agent Pauline Muzhewe who was wrongly convicted of theft of trust property after she was accused of failing to surrender US$3 750 commission to her principal after successfully negotiating a property.

She was convicted and sentenced to 12 months imprisonment by a Harare magistrate. The court suspended six months on condition of good behaviour. The remaining six months were set aside on condition of restitution. 

This was all quashed by High Court Judges Pisirayi Kwenda and Davison Foroma after Muzhewe, represented by Stephen Chikotora of Rubaya and Chatambudza Legal Practitioners took the matter up for appeal and the prosecution conceded her conviction was irregular.

She is now free with no criminal record.

Muzhewe who was a property sales negotiator with Re/Max Advisory facilitating transactions between buyers and sellers on behalf of the agency and earning a commission upon successfully concluding sales.

The court heard that in August 2024, Muzhewe negotiated a successful property sale while representing Re/Max Advisory.

The transaction involved collaboration with Dandeal Properties, another registered estate agency, represented by one James Chihuri, the agency’s principal agent.

It is said a total commission of US$ 7 500 was paid, which was to be shared equally between the two agencies.

Chihuri received the total commission and handed US$ 3 750 to Pauline Muzhewe, who was expected to remit the full amount to Re/Max Advisory.

In turn, Re/Max Advisory would process her share of the commission as per the standard procedure. 

It was however, alleged that instead of delivering the funds to her employer, she converted the money to her own use and then resigned from Re/Max Advisory without disclosing the transaction.

The alleged misconduct was reportedly discovered during a routine review of her office records after her resignation.

The matter was reported to the Estate Agents Council (EAC), the regulatory authority overseeing real estate agencies in Zimbabwe and following advice from the council’s compliance officer Stanford Madzora, the matter was reported to the police leading to her arrest.

“The Appellant was convicted in circumstances where she ought not to have been convicted in the first place.  The Appellant effectively handed over the money meant for Agents to one James Marufu Chihuri, who in turn signed for the full amount of US$7,500. The Appellant presented to the Court a signed Acknowledgement of Receipt wherein James Marufu Chihuri received the full US$7,500.

“Instead of believing the Appellant, who had documentary proof that James Marufu Chihuri had received the full US$7,500 which included the US$3,750 which the Complainant RE/MAX Advisory Zimbabwe was pursuing. 

“The Court a quo failed to appreciate that the case was a one-witness case regards whether or not the Appellant got the alleged 50% of the US$7,500.00 in the first place. The Court a quo dismally failed to analyse the evidence appropriately since this was effectively a single-witness case,” the lawyers argued.

The State conceded that the court should not have convicted Muzhewe under the circumstances, agreeing with Muzhewe’s lawyer.

“Apart from the word of James Chihuri that appellant collected her share of commission o f .U$3 750.00, there was no evidence produced to confirm that. This was a business transaction which ordinarily would have required documentary proof that a receipt be issued to the appellant for the said amount. Without such evidence adduced it becomes difficult to accept such an assertion when in the first place there was documentary proof that an amount o f US$7 500

was received as commission by James Chihuri. One would then ask the question, why now there is no receipt issued for the distribution of US$3. 750.00 to the appellant nor any witnesses to confirm the transfer.

“The respondent would concede that the explanation advanced by the appellant remains standing. The evidence of James Chihuri on its own cannot be said to have shown the falsity of the explanation advanced by the appellant,” the State said.