BishopAccountability.org
	Zimbabwe: Pius Ncube Legal Wrangle with Sibands Rages on allAfrica September 27, 2007 http://allafrica.com/stories/200709270168.html Harare — The legal wrangle between the disgraced former head of the Roman Catholic Church in Bulawayo, Archbishop Pius Ncube, and the man who has filed a $20 billion adultery damages lawsuit against him rages on with the cleric arguing that he is not resorting to delaying tactics. In his response to Mr Onesimus Sibanda's response to his application seeking an order that he be given facts of the case or drop the case, Archbishop Ncube, who is the applicant in the case, said in his answering affidavit dated 24 September Mr Sibanda was not paying attention to relevant issues. It is the cleric's contention through his lawyer, Advocate Nicholas Mathonsi of Coghlan and Welsh, that Mr Sibanda "has assigned space and time to semantical matters which do not change the complexion of the argument." "While the respondent is entitled to his opinion, I do not understand the use of the word 'stubborn' to suggest anything mythical other than the fact that Respondent has resolutely refused to supply the particulars requested, albeit without any meaningful legal foundation. For that reason there is absolutely no need for any withdrawal," he said. Mr Sibanda, in his affidavit filed to indicate his intention to oppose Archbishop Ncube's application, had expressed displeasure at the use of the word "stubborn" and had brought to the court's attention his "displeasure at the language used by Ncube" in his application. He had asked the court to direct a withdrawal of that statement in the hearing of the matter. On the issue of the clarification on the question of dates, venues and times which Mr Sibanda indicated that they had already been indicated in the summons, Archbishop Ncube noted that apart from the "obviously grammatically incorrect statement", the averments in question did not come anywhere near setting out any "period" of time. Said Archbishop Ncube: "My understanding of a period of time is a time frame between two dates. To say 'between the period beginning January 2006 - and end there certainly does not set out a period of time." It is his contention that the averments definitely do not set out any "venue", if anything it is couched in such wide terms as to render it meaningless. Archbishop Ncube denied that he had stated that Mr Sibanda had stated that he was in a position of trust. "It is not for the Respondent to lecture the court on what he would 'naturally suffer' or what is important at this stage but to plead his case in compliance with the rules of procedure and with sufficient clarity as to enable me to respond effectively. Respondent cannot get away with sweeping statements and unsubstantiated allegations," he said. On Mr Sibanda's submission that he had made an amendment to his application, Archbishop Ncube states that an "amendment" which has not been granted by the court is no amendment at all and that there is nothing "clear" about that. "Respondent thinks that an 'amendment' is a matter of course and that the court has no say whatsoever in the proceedings. He is thoroughly wrong and is guilty of a lamentable disregard of the court's power to adjudicate on the issues before it and to determine when an amendment should be granted. It is not a formality," Archbishop Ncube further argues. It is the cleric's argument that he does not need to be patient at all as he needs the particulars "that I am entitled to by virtue of law." He contends that Mr Sibanda cannot be allowed to rush to court with "dramatic and wild allegations" which he cannot substantiate and hide behind saying "the other particulars- will be supplied at a later stage-" Concludes Archbishop Ncube in his reply: "The Respondent does not seem to realise that this is not a criminal case but a civil matter governed by the rules of civil practice and procedure. It matters not what 'any reasonable person' thinks or understands or what he believes is 'necessary particulars'. What is important is that in a claim of this nature the law requires him to supply all the particulars that I have requested and it is incompetent for him to refuse with those particulars, assuming he has them."
Any original material on these pages is copyright © BishopAccountability.org 2004. Reproduce freely with attribution.