Firm once accused of defrauding VP Chiwenga’s wife, faces fresh allegations

KARIBA – Gray Homes Construction, a company previously accused of defrauding Vice President Constantino Chiwenga’s wife, Minnie Baloyi, is once again facing allegations of failing to deliver paid services, with a Kariba woman claiming she paid US$2 500 for a kitchen refurbishment that was never completed.

A video circulating on social media shows a woman, identified as Letwin Chitemere, claiming she paid US$2 800 to Gray Homes for a kitchen refurbishment at her Kariba Round House property.

In the video, Chitemere is seen in distress, asking for a refund after the work allegedly remained incomplete.

“After we paid the required amount in October, they went silent and did not carry out the work. Even when we call or text them, they do not respond,” the woman said tearfully.

In response, Gray Homes Construction issued an official statement clarifying the circumstances. The company said it initially received a request to install kitchen cupboards, but the client’s expectations later extended to a full house construction within a budget of US$3 500.

The company said that after professional evaluation, it determined the full project was not feasible within the proposed budget and presented a revised quotation.

Gray Homes stated that the client was informed that additional funding would be required to proceed beyond the US$2 500 already paid. According to the company, the client was unable to meet the revised financial requirements.

“Gray Homes Construction wishes to firmly state that all engagements were conducted in good faith, with clear communication and professional guidance provided at every stage.

“We therefore find it concerning that misleading information has been shared publicly regarding this matter,” the company stated.

Prominent journalist Hopewell Chin’ono weighed into the saga telling Gray Homes that their statement was “meaningless until you pay her back her money.”

“You admit in your own press release that you never went on site, that you relied on what you call the “scope of work communicated” to you, yet you still took US$2,500 from her.

“What kind of construction company takes money for a project before physically assessing the site where the work is meant to be done?

“You say the clients’ expectations later changed to building a full house within a US$3,500 budget. No reasonable client would expect a full house to be built for that amount, and no professional contractor would proceed, invoice, or retain funds without first conducting proper due diligence, site inspections, and feasibility assessments.

“You further admit that after your “professional evaluation” the project was not feasible within the proposed budget, yet instead of refunding the client, you produced a revised quotation and demanded more money.

“That is not transparency or professionalism, it is predatory conduct dressed up in corporate language for public relations purposes. Hiding behind polished statements about “integrity,” “ethical business practices,” and “protecting brand reputation” does not change the material facts. The ethical action here is simple and immediate, refund her money.

“Anything short of that makes this press release nothing more than a public relations exercise designed to sanitise conduct that, by your own account, shows you took funds before doing the most basic professional requirement, visiting the site.

“This crookedness hiding behind political garments must end. Simply pay her back her money not writing these compositions!,” Chin’ono wrote on his Facebook page.

Gray Homes’ current predicament comes amid its controversial history. In February 2025, criminal charges against company owners Annavestah Mudiwa and her husband Gray Mudiwa were withdrawn by the State.

They were accused of defrauding Miniyothabo Baloyi-Chiwenga of nearly US$1 million for the construction of a double-storey mansion, a warehouse, and a shopping mall.

Prosecutors alleged the couple misrepresented their capacity to complete the projects and diverted the funds for personal use. No reason was given in court for the withdrawal of the charges, and no funds were reportedly recovered.