By Staff Reporter

FORMER Movement for Democratic Change Tsvangirai (MDC-T) vice president, Elias Mudzuri, has failed to stop Parliament from confirming his expulsion from the party.

Mudzuri was recently expelled alongside other top opposition party officials including Norest Marara, Edwin Kakora, Gift Konjana, Den Moyo and Edwin Dzambara.

The group was accused of violating the party’s constitution after dragging their leader, Douglas Mwonzora to court challenging his re-election on December 18, 2022.

Mudzuri filed an urgent chamber application at the High Court seeking to stop confirmation of his expulsion which was dismissed by High Court judge Justice David Mangota ruling he had failed to justify his request.

“The logic of the matter is that the letter of 6 February 2023 would not have taken away from the applicant his position of Vice-President of the first respondent (MDC-T) and allowed him to remain a card-carrying member of the first respondent. He would, in all probability, have been stripped of his membership in the first respondent completely.

“Once it is accepted, as it should, that the applicant is no longer a member of the first respondent, the logical conclusion which follows from the stated matter is that he has no right which he requires to protect.

“An applicant for an interdict must prove, on a preponderance of probabilities, the existence of the right which he wants protected by the interdict. All other requirements for an interdict will only be considered after the existence of the right has been established. Where, as in casu (in this case), no such right exists, the application for an interdict fails.

“The applicant failed to prove, on a balance of probabilities, the existence of any right which he enjoys in the first respondent. The application is struck off the roll of urgent matters with costs.”

In his application, Mudzuri cited Mwonzora, party chairman Morgen Komichi, MDC-T Secretary General Paurina Mupariwa Gwanyanya as respondents.

The respondents challenged his application, arguing that what he sought to interdict had already taken place. 

They further argued that he had not shown a sense of urgency as he had been made aware of the termination of his party membership on February 8 but chose to only file for an interdict six days later.