Kudenga, Masunda Face Forensic Audit as Chidawu Trust Dispute Escalates

HARARE — A bitter dispute over the administration of the Oliver Mandishona Chidawu Trust has escalated into a court-ordered examination of its finances, governance and assets, placing trustees Ngoni Kudenga and Muchadeyi Masunda under intense scrutiny.

The High Court has authorised an independent forensic audit of the trust after beneficiary Ropafadzo Sibusiso Chidawu accused its trustees of failing to provide adequate financial and governance information. The order means the trust’s affairs — including its income, expenditure, assets, liabilities and transactions — are now to be subjected to a detailed review dating back to 1 January 2022.

Justice Samuel Deme reportedly issued a mandatory interdict requiring the appointment of a forensic auditing firm registered with Zimbabwe’s Public Accountants and Auditors Board. The appointed auditors are expected to receive access to the trust’s books, bank statements, company records and any other material reasonably required to complete the investigation.

The ruling does not establish that Kudenga or Masunda misappropriated funds or committed any other wrongdoing. It does, however, expose the seriousness of the governance dispute and places the trustees under a legal obligation to open the trust’s records to independent scrutiny.

That scrutiny follows allegations that beneficiaries were shut out of the trust’s affairs and repeatedly denied access to financial records, governance documents and explanations about the management of its assets. According to the application, requests were made through lawyers and direct correspondence between 2022 and 2025, but the information sought was not provided to the beneficiary’s satisfaction.

Ropafadzo described the situation as an “informational black hole” created by what she characterised as a prolonged refusal to account for the trust. The language captures the central issue in the dispute: whether trustees entrusted with family assets can operate without giving beneficiaries a clear account of how those assets are being managed.

The allegations go beyond missing paperwork. Ropafadzo reportedly raised questions over the sale of a farm said to have been worth approximately US$2 million, as well as claims that companies associated with the trust may have been used as security for personal debts. These allegations have not been established by the court and require verification through the forensic process.

She also objected to an alleged application to exhume her late father from property controlled by the trust, arguing that the move had been made without proper consultation or an adequate explanation. The claim adds an intensely personal dimension to a dispute already marked by an apparent breakdown between trustees and beneficiaries.

At the heart of the case is a basic fiduciary principle: trustees are expected to maintain proper records and account for their administration when beneficiaries reasonably demand an explanation. That duty is not satisfied by producing selective documents or relying on technical objections. It requires trustees to present, explain and justify their stewardship of the trust’s affairs.

The court dispute appears to have deepened after the trustees allegedly argued that Ropafadzo had not made a proper request to inspect the books. She reportedly described that position as a cynical attempt to avoid the substance of the complaints. The court’s decision to authorise a forensic audit now shifts the argument from competing assertions to evidence.

The audit will be expected to establish what happened to the trust’s money and assets, who authorised key transactions, whether proper governance procedures were followed and whether any personal or related-party interests influenced decisions. It could also determine whether the alleged farm sale, use of companies as security and other disputed transactions were properly documented and undertaken for the benefit of the trust.

For Kudenga and Masunda, the order represents a serious accountability moment. Both men have been given an opportunity to place the full record before independent professionals and answer the allegations with documents. A transparent audit could resolve the dispute and restore confidence. Missing records, unexplained transactions or obstruction would raise further questions about the management of the trust.

For beneficiaries, the case is a warning about the consequences of opaque administration. Trusts exist to protect and manage assets for defined beneficiaries, not to create private information barriers around money, property and corporate structures. When beneficiaries are repeatedly denied meaningful accounts, suspicion becomes almost inevitable.

The forensic audit is therefore more than an accounting exercise. It is a test of whether the trustees treated their obligations as a public-facing responsibility to beneficiaries or as a private arrangement beyond meaningful scrutiny.

The court has now made the path clear: the records must be opened, the transactions examined and the explanations tested. Whatever the audit ultimately finds, the era of unanswered questions surrounding the Chidawu Trust has been placed under judicial pressure.