By Princess Eugene Majuru | News of The South
The death of Zimbabwean businessman Wicknell Chivhayo has opened a new chapter of controversy, with questions emerging over the ownership and payment status of luxury vehicles he reportedly gifted to musicians, religious leaders and other beneficiaries during his lifetime.
In a live broadcast today, 21 October 2026, Madzibaba Kobo raised serious concerns over reports that some recipients of Chivhayo’s generosity have been instructed to return their vehicles, allegedly because the cars had not been fully paid for.
Among those reportedly affected is musician Sugar Sugar, whose vehicle Kobo said was valued at approximately US$75,000. According to Kobo, Chivhayo had also given the musician an additional US$50,000 in cash.
Kobo questioned how a businessman who publicly distributed expensive vehicles and substantial sums of money could have failed to settle the purchase price of a comparatively modest vehicle.
The allegations have not been independently verified, and no purchase agreements, payment records or formal demands for the return of the vehicles have been examined by News of The South.
Nevertheless, the controversy raises important questions about the administration of Chivhayo’s estate, the legal ownership of his gifts and the financial arrangements behind his widely publicised generosity.
Vapostori reportedly given deadline to return vehicles
Kobo further claimed that members of the Vapostori religious community in Marondera who received vehicles from Chivhayo had also been instructed to surrender them, with a reported deadline of 20 October 2026.
If these claims are accurate, the demands could have significant implications for beneficiaries who believed the vehicles were unconditional gifts.
The situation raises an immediate question: who is demanding the return of the vehicles, and on what legal authority?
Are the demands coming from vehicle dealers claiming outstanding payments, representatives of Chivhayo’s estate, creditors or other individuals?
These distinctions are critical because the death of a person who purchased and gifted property does not automatically invalidate gifts that were legally completed during their lifetime.
If ownership was properly transferred, the beneficiaries may have enforceable rights to retain their vehicles. However, if the transactions were incomplete, financed or subject to outstanding contractual obligations, the legal position could be more complicated.
The public deserves clarity rather than speculation.
Why are some beneficiaries reportedly being targeted while others are not?
One of Kobo’s strongest arguments concerned the apparent inconsistency in the reported demands.
He referred to the high-value vehicle Chivhayo gifted to businessman and religious leader Uebert Angel, suggesting that its value could purchase numerous less expensive vehicles.
Kobo also mentioned prominent religious figures, including Bishop Nehemiah Mutendi and Prophet Emmanuel Makandiwa, among those who had received expensive gifts.
His argument was straightforward: if Chivhayo was financially capable of purchasing some of the most expensive vehicles for influential individuals, why would he have failed to pay for vehicles of substantially lower value?
However, the value of one completed transaction does not establish whether another transaction was settled. Different vehicles may have been purchased through different dealers, payment arrangements or intermediaries.
Kobo also questioned why musician Selmor Mtukudzi, who reportedly received a vehicle shortly before Chivhayo’s death, had not been publicly identified among those allegedly instructed to return their gifts.
This raises questions about whether the reported demands relate to particular dealers, outstanding transactions, registration arrangements or other circumstances not yet disclosed.
Without access to the relevant documents, it would be premature to conclude that certain beneficiaries are being deliberately protected or targeted.
The mystery of vehicle registration documents
Another important issue raised during Kobo’s broadcast concerns vehicle registration documents, commonly referred to as logbooks.
He questioned why a vehicle dealer would release a car and provide its registration documents to a recipient if the purchase price had not been settled.
It is a reasonable question, but the existence of registration documents alone does not necessarily prove that a vehicle was fully paid for.
In Zimbabwe, as in many other jurisdictions, registration, possession and contractual ownership are not always identical.
A vehicle can be registered in someone’s name while a finance agreement, outstanding debt or contractual restriction remains in place.
What matters is the underlying purchase agreement, proof of payment, any financing arrangements and the legal terms governing transfer of ownership.
If recipients were given vehicles with documents indicating lawful ownership, any subsequent attempt to recover those vehicles should be supported by clear evidence and an identifiable legal basis.
Cash transactions could complicate investigations
Kobo also explained that Chivhayo reportedly conducted some transactions using cash rather than electronic bank transfers.
According to his account, vehicles sourced from South Africa were handled through South African-based lawyers, while gifts arranged within Zimbabwe were processed through Zimbabwean lawyers.
If accurate, these arrangements suggest that legal professionals or other intermediaries may hold important documentation relating to the purchases.
Cash transactions are not necessarily undocumented transactions.
Receipts, invoices, signed acknowledgements, dealership records, customs declarations and legal correspondence can all establish whether payment was made. The difficulty arises where large amounts of money change hands without adequate records.
If Chivhayo paid for vehicles in cash, documentary evidence may be essential to establish which transactions were completed and which, if any, remained outstanding.
The lawyers involved may also have records of instructions, settlement arrangements and ownership transfers, subject to their professional obligations and applicable confidentiality rules.
The central issue is therefore not simply whether cash was used, but whether reliable evidence exists showing how the transactions were concluded.
Reports of US$5.1 million in outstanding vehicle payments deepen the controversy
The questions raised by Kobo come against a backdrop of wider media reports about Chivhayo’s financial obligations.
On 20 October, ZimLive reported that three Harare dealerships — Exquisite Cars, Enterprise Car Sales and Faramatsi Motors — were collectively owed approximately US$5.1 million for vehicles supplied to Chivhayo.
According to the report, Faramatsi Motors alone was owed approximately US$2.4 million.
These reports introduce another dimension to the controversy. If substantial amounts were outstanding when Chivhayo died, the issue may extend beyond individual beneficiaries to the financial administration of a complex business and personal estate.
However, reported dealership debts do not automatically establish that Sugar Sugar’s vehicle, or those of the Marondera Vapostori, form part of the outstanding balances.
Each transaction must be examined individually.
What will happen to the buses gifted to Vapostori?
Beyond luxury cars, Chivhayo also became known for donating buses to religious communities, particularly members of the Johane Masowe apostolic movement.
Kobo’s revelations have therefore raised a further question: what happens to the buses if similar payment disputes emerge?
Unlike privately owned vehicles, buses donated to religious communities may serve hundreds of people, transporting worshippers to gatherings and supporting church activities.
If ownership or payment disputes arise over these vehicles, the consequences could extend well beyond individual recipients.
There are also questions about whether the buses were purchased outright, financed through credit arrangements or registered in the names of churches, trustees or individuals.
Until the relevant agreements are examined, there is no basis for assuming that the buses are affected by the reported disputes involving cars.
Nevertheless, the scale of Chivhayo’s donations makes a comprehensive review of the transactions increasingly important.
Mnangagwa’s defence of Chivhayo’s wealth returns to public debate
For years, Chivhayo’s extraordinary spending attracted both admiration and suspicion.
His supporters celebrated him as a generous businessman who shared his wealth with musicians, religious leaders, sports personalities and ordinary Zimbabweans.
His critics questioned the origins of the enormous sums he distributed and the relationship between his wealth, government contracts and political connections.
President Emmerson Mnangagwa previously defended Chivhayo’s right to spend his personal money as he wished, describing his spending as a matter for the individual.
But the latest developments revive a broader public-interest question: how was such an extensive programme of donations financed?
The existence of outstanding commercial debts would not, by itself, prove that Chivhayo lacked wealth or that his funds came from improper sources. Wealthy businesspeople frequently use credit arrangements to manage cash flow.
Nevertheless, transparency becomes particularly important where an individual’s wealth and business activities have attracted sustained public scrutiny.
The question is no longer simply how much Chivhayo gave away, but how those gifts were financed, documented and legally transferred.
Is greed emerging after Chivhayo’s death?
Zimbabwe has witnessed numerous inheritance disputes in which the death of a wealthy individual is followed by disagreements involving relatives, business associates, creditors and other interested parties.
In some cases, legitimate creditors seek to recover money owed to them. In others, competing claims over property develop into prolonged legal battles.
There is also the possibility of opportunistic claims where individuals attempt to exploit uncertainty surrounding a deceased person’s estate.
However, it would be unfair to describe every demand for payment or recovery of property as greed.
A dealer who genuinely supplied vehicles without receiving full payment has a legitimate interest in recovering the outstanding amount.
Equally, a beneficiary who received a vehicle as a completed gift should not be subjected to intimidation or deprived of property without lawful justification.
The real danger arises when legitimate claims and opportunistic demands become difficult to distinguish.
Chivhayo’s sudden death means he can no longer personally explain the arrangements he made, the promises he gave or the payments he authorised.
That absence creates opportunities for misunderstandings, competing accounts and potentially dishonest claims.
This is why independent documentation and proper estate administration are essential.
Kobo says his own South African vehicle is fully paid for
During the broadcast, Kobo also addressed his own vehicle, which he said was purchased in South Africa.
He maintained that the vehicle had been fully paid for, including the applicable customs duty, and was currently at the Beitbridge border.
His explanation appeared intended to distinguish his own circumstances from those of recipients reportedly facing demands to surrender their vehicles.
Although the payment and customs documents have not been independently examined, his remarks highlight the importance of keeping complete records when acquiring expensive assets across international borders.
The questions that must now be answered
The controversy surrounding Chivhayo’s gifts cannot be resolved through social media arguments alone.
Those involved must establish whether the vehicles were fully paid for, whether lawful ownership passed to the recipients and whether the reported demands are supported by enforceable agreements.
The identities of those demanding the return of the cars must also be established.
If the vehicles were supplied on credit, creditors should clarify whether they are pursuing the deceased’s estate or asserting rights directly against individual vehicles.
Equally important is the role of the lawyers and intermediaries who reportedly processed the transactions.
If documentation exists showing completed payments, it could resolve some of the disputes and protect innocent beneficiaries.
If outstanding debts are confirmed, the estate’s representatives must determine how those liabilities should be settled in accordance with the law.
There must also be safeguards against individuals exploiting Chivhayo’s death to seize assets without legitimate entitlement.
A legacy of generosity now facing its greatest test
Perhaps the greatest tragedy of the emerging controversy is that gifts once celebrated as symbols of generosity could become sources of distress for the very people they were intended to help.
For years, Chivhayo’s public announcements of vehicle donations generated excitement across Zimbabwe.
His familiar instruction for beneficiaries to collect their cars became part of his public identity.
Today, the same vehicles are at the centre of difficult questions about ownership, outstanding payments and the responsibilities left behind after his death.
Madzibaba Kobo’s broadcast has added another voice to a debate that is unlikely to disappear without documentary evidence and transparent explanations.
If Chivhayo genuinely paid for the vehicles, those payments should be capable of being established through credible records. If some purchases remained outstanding, the financial obligations must be addressed lawfully.
But beneficiaries should not be made to suffer simply because the person who gave them their vehicles is no longer alive to defend or explain his transactions.
Ultimately, the issue is about more than cars, buses and millions of dollars.
It is about the protection of property rights, the responsibilities of creditors, the integrity of estate administration and the preservation of a deceased person’s legacy.
Wicknell Chivhayo has been laid to rest, but the financial questions surrounding his extraordinary generosity are far from buried.
And until those questions are answered, Zimbabweans will continue asking whether the gifts that brought so much happiness during his lifetime are now becoming a source of conflict after his death.
Comments
About Author
