Vela abandons Supreme Court bid in long-running debt fight with Al Shams Global

Former National Social Security Authority (NSSA) chairperson Robin Vela’s legal troubles deepened this week after his legal representatives, IEG Musimbe and partners, abruptly filed notice of renunciation.

Vela suffered another blow thereafter when his new lawyers, Chambati Mataka and Makonese, on February 16 withdrew his Supreme Court chamber application, ending a last-ditch attempt to revive an appeal already dismissed for procedural non-compliance.

The withdrawal marks the latest blow in a protracted legal battle over more than US$1.18 million plus interest owed to Singapore-based lender Al Shams Global Limited, a dispute in which every court that has heard the matter has ruled against Vela, his wife Gaudencia, and their company Firstmile Apartments.

The sequence leading to the withdrawal began on 20 January 2026, when the Supreme Court threw out Vela’s appeal on the basis that his lawyers had failed to serve the notice of appeal on the Registrar of the High Court’s Commercial Division as required under Rule 44(2) of the Supreme Court Rules.

In a formal notice to the Velas, the Registrar advised: “You did not serve the Registrar of the High Court with the Notice of Appeal as required… the appeal is regarded abandoned and deemed to have been dismissed.”

That dismissal prompted Vela’s former legal practitioners, IEG Musimbe and partners, to file a chamber application on 6 February seeking condonation and reinstatement, arguing the omission was inadvertent and caused by confusion arising from the consolidation of two High Court matters. His lawyer, Gwinyai Ranganayi, insisted in an affidavit that he had been caught off-guard by the procedural requirement, saying, “I was surprised by this… Once the appeal was processed with that underlying reference number, it did not occur to me that I needed to separately serve on the registrar of the Commercial Division. I was obviously wrong… I unconditionally apologise for this shortcoming.”

He argued the appeal had “bright prospects of success,” and that the High Court had erred by refusing to refer constitutional issues surrounding Rule 14 of the High Court Rules to the Constitutional Court.

But Al Shams Global Limited hit back, filing a notice of opposition dismissing the condonation bid as baseless.

Director Jayesh Shah accused the Velas of attempting to dodge responsibility for their own non-compliance, insisting their explanation was “false, contrived and wholly insufficient.” Shah disputed the claim of confusion.

“There was no confusion. The applicants were served with two separate case numbers, two separate registries, and two separate processes. The duty to comply with Rule 44(2) was clear and unambiguous.”

He added that the applicants were trying to “escape the consequences of their own neglect,” describing their stance as disingenuous and part of a broader pattern of avoiding repayment.

While that dispute unfolded, the Velas’ longstanding lawyers, IEG Musimbe and Partners, renounced agency on February 13, withdrawing from the case entirely.

The firm did not give reasons, simply stating, “We, the undersigned Messrs IEG Musimbe and Partners, legal practitioners, have renounced agency on behalf of the First, Second and Third Applicants in this matter.” The Velas appointed a new firm, Chambati, Mataka and Makonese Attorneys, but within three days the litigation unravelled completely.

On 16 February, the new lawyers filed a notice withdrawing the chamber application in its entirety.

In the brief notice, the Velas said “The Applicants hereby withdraw the above chamber application… and hereby tender wasted costs.” The withdrawal effectively shuts the door on their attempt to resurrect the appeal, which the Supreme Court had already ruled “did not legally exist” because the required service had never been done.

The collapse of the Supreme Court proceedings caps a string of losses for Vela stretching back to 2024, when Firstmile Apartments acknowledged owing Al Shams substantial sums in two notarised acknowledgements of debt.

The amounts US$1,182,500 and US$361,666.67, both attracting interest of 10 percent per month, became the subject of provisional sentence proceedings in the High Court after the Velas failed to honour their commitments.

Despite multiple written acknowledgements (singed before a Notary Public), board resolutions, and even emails accepting liability, the Velas mounted a constitutional challenge arguing that Zimbabwe’s provisional sentence framework, particularly Rule 14, violated their right to a fair hearing by creating a “pay now, argue later” system. But on 3 December 2025, Justice Vivian Ndlovu dismissed the application as meritless, ruling: “This application is frivolous and vexatious, and it should fail.”

She found the Velas were attempting to delay inevitable repayment and emphasised there was “nothing unconstitutional about Rule 14.”

With the Supreme Court’s withdrawal, the matter now returns to the High Court’s Commercial Division for enforcement, including the potential execution of Stand 1148 Salisbury Township, an immovable property owned by Firstmile.

Al Shams is now legally entitled to pursue the full debt, interest, and collection commission of US$118,250, alongside attorney-client costs, a liability that may push the Velas’ total exposure well beyond the original sums.

The post Vela abandons Supreme Court bid in long-running debt fight with Al Shams Global appeared first on NewZimbabwe.com.