Harare – As the tribunal investigating High Court Judge Never Katiyo begins, a deep dive into his professional trajectory, judicial philosophy and prior rulings sheds light on why his tenure has come under national scrutiny.
—
Education and Early Career
According to his publicly available biography, Katiyo served as a magistrate in Chinhoyi and was also the Legal Affairs Director in the Ministry of Industry and Commerce prior to his elevation to the bench.
In September 2021, he was appointed as a Judge of the High Court of Zimbabwe by President Emmerson Mnangagwa.
Earlier still, records indicate he served in the magistracy and even took leave to serve on the drafting committees for the constitution in 2011 as a ZANU‑PF advisor.
—
Notable Judgments
A Landmark on Arbitrary Demolition
In a decision handed down on 16 October 2024, Justice Katiyo ruled that certain provisions of the Regional, Town and Country Planning Act were ultra vires (beyond the powers) of the Constitution — specifically, sections 32(2)(c)&(d) and 37(1)(a)(i). He held that those sections failed to provide a “reasonable limitation” on the right not to be arbitrarily evicted (Section 74 of the Constitution).
In doing so, he found that a demolition order by the Chitungwiza Municipality (8 October 2020) was invalid.
That ruling was subsequently upheld by the Constitutional Court, endorsing his interpretation of the right to adequate housing and protection from arbitrary eviction.
This judgment has been cited by civil society as a meaningful pushback against “bulldozer justice” in Zimbabwe.
The ‘Withdrawn’ Ruling
On 28 July 2025, Katiyo delivered a judgment in Case HCH6784/19 (involving Bulgarian‑registered firm Technoimpex JSC and Zimbabwean claimants) which was then rescinded on 7 August 2025 under Rule 29 of the High Court Rules.
The reason given: “judgment which was erroneously issued … be and is hereby rescinded.”
Legal practitioners raised concerns because the judgment attributed appearances and oral arguments to lawyers who had not appeared or even been instructed. For example, Advocate Thabani Mpofu filed a formal complaint to the Judicial Service Commission charging that the ruling was “totally made up.”
This event triggered calls for formal inquiry into Katiyo’s conduct and fitness as a judge.
—
Controversies, Criticisms & Institutional Flags
Allegations of Procedure‑Failure
The Technoimpex case above raises serious accusations of procedural irregularity: no hearing date recorded, no known submissions by the named counsel, yet a final judgment issued.
These procedural failures, if proven, undermine the fundamental guarantees of open and fair hearing under Zimbabwean law.
Political Dimension
In 2011, prior to his appointment as judge, Katiyo reportedly took leave from his magistrate role to serve as a technical advisor to the ruling ZANU PF party on the drafting of the 2013 Constitution. Such ties raise questions about impartiality at the bench, especially in politically‑sensitive cases.
Passport to Accountability: The Upcoming Tribunal
Because of the procedural lapses and allegations of fabrication (in the Technoimpex dispute), the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) may recommend to the President the establishment of a tribunal to assess Katiyo’s fitness to hold office — an extraordinary measure rarely seen.
—
Judicial Philosophy & Public Perception
From his rulings, Katiyo appears to lean toward enforcing constitutional rights — for example, in the demolition case, protecting citizens from arbitrary eviction.
Yet the procedural missteps in other judgments have marred that image. The paradox of a judge who delivers rights‑protective judgments but also faces serious allegations of process failure is central to his current predicament.
Legal scholar Alice Moyo (interview pending) described the Katiyo phenomenon this way:
> “When a judge hits meaningful rights‑ground but fails in process, the net effect is to erode public confidence rather than build it.”
—
Looking Ahead: Why This Matters
The outcome of the tribunal or inquiry into Katiyo will set precedent for how Zimbabwe’s judiciary handles senior judge accountability.
It raises wider questions about judicial independence vs accountability: how to protect judges from undue influence while ensuring they adhere to process and ethics.
For litigants and observers alike, the integrity of the judge is as important as the integrity of the judgment.
—