Stanford Chagadama told the High Court he had to take the legal route to force Sadomba to effect the transfer.
In the application he cited Sadomba, his wife Sherlynn and the Registrar of Deeds as first, second and third respondents respectively.
“This is an application to compel first and second respondents (Edward and Sherlynn) to do all such acts and to sign all such documents as are necessary to pass transfer of the property known as certain piece of land situate in the district of Salisbury called stand 142 Haydon Township measuring 1 623 square metres held under Deed of Transfer No. 4860/2014 (‘the property’) to myself failing which the Sheriff of the High Court be authorised to do all such acts and to sign all such documents as may be required by the third respondent (Registrar of Deeds) to effect such transfer into my name,” Chagadama said.
He told the court that he entered into an agreement of sale with the Sadombas on September 7, this year in terms of which he purchased a house worth $140 000.
“It will be gleaned from the agreement that inter alia: the agreed purchase price was in the sum of $140 000 and was to be paid through a mortgage bond from IDBZ, transfer of the property to myself was to be effected by Maja and Associates who were appointed by the sellers to be the conveyancers of the property.”
It was also a further term of the agreement that Chagadama was to pay for the conveyancing fees to enable transfer of the property to be effected.
The Sadombas, were however, supposed to pay the Zimbabwe Revenue Authority, the capital gains tax based on the transaction and thereafter obtain a clearance certificate for the transfer to be effected.
Chagadama told the court that he fulfilled his side of the bargain in terms of the agreement, after which he made follow ups on the progress of the transfer process.
However, Sadomba, who played for Dynamos, Al Hilal, Liga Muculumana and Al-Ahli Tripoli, in his response, raised technical issues, which he said rendered the application fatally defective.
“The purported affidavit of the applicant is not commissioned by the commissioner who purported to commission it.
“It is not apparent ex facie who the purported commissioner is and because of this defect, there is no affidavit before the court,” he said, further denying ever receiving the said $140 000.
He said there was no proof of payment that had been presented to the court and urged the court to dismiss the application. Daily News