Popular actress Charity Dhlodhlo, who appeared in the famous local soap Studio 263 as Mai Madziva, approached the Harare Civil Court last week seeking an interdict against her landlord whom she is accusing of threatening to evict her from her premises over US$200 rentals without following due court processes.
Dhlodhlo claims that she entered into a verbal lease agreement with Anna Ramushi Sango where they agreed that she would pay $350 per month.
On May 27, 2019 Sango gave her a verbal notice to vacate the premises if she does not pay the sum of US$200.
“Despite such verbal notice, the applicant indicated that she cannot meet the respondent’s demand of paying US$200 per month, hence the respondent is now threatening to unlawfully evict the applicant without any due court processes,” reads part of Dhlodhlo’s founding affidavit.
“The respondent has already disconnected water supplies and removed the gate which will make life difficult for the applicant to stay without those necessities. I humbly submit that the respondent’s action of taking the law into her own hands is unlawful and should not be condoned.”
The matter appeared before Harare Civil Court provincial magistrate Mr Lazini Ncube, who struck it off from the roll following indications that both parties were in default.
Last month, Dhlodhlo dragged Prophetic Healing and Deliverance (PHD) Ministries leader Prophet Walter Magaya’s personal bodyguard James Dzamu accusing him of making death threats to her.
She accused Dzamu of threatening to kill her for revealing sordid details about Magaya’s business and private life.
In her testimony, Dhlodhlo told the court that Dzamu approached her while she was parked outside the gate of her house waiting for her daughter to open it.
She said Dzamu just emerged from behind an avocado tree and proceeded to her car and said: “Charity, if you want to die keep on doing what you are doing; talking about (Prophet) Magaya. If you are someone just keep quiet.”
However, Mbare magistrate Mr Stanford Mambanje cleared Dzamu of any wrongdoing at the end of the prosecution’s case.
The court found that Dhlodhlo’s evidence was not credible enough and that it was riddled with inconsistencies.