Harare - Zimbabwean First Lady Grace Mugabe has reportedly urged the High Court to discharge an "erroneous" order it issued against her and her son in a case in which they were being accused of grabbing properties belonging to a Lebanese businessman Jamal Ahmed.Ahmed took the First Lady to court after she allegedly seized his properties, demanding that he repays a $1.3m she had paid for a diamond ring that she decided she did not want when it was delivered to her.A Harare High Court judge Clement Phiri on December 21 issued a provisional order compelling President Robert Mugabe’s wife to vacate within 24 hours from three properties that she had allegedly seized following the deal that reportedly went sour. Another order to the same effect was also issued later after she allegedly grabbed two more houses belonging to Ahmed.Grace, however, denied grabbing the five properties, accusing Ahmed of duping her in the botched deal.Grace described Ahmed as "an international fraudster wanted by international police".Ahmed’s name was, however, not on Interpol’s "wanted persons" list.In the latest developments, the state-owned Herald newspaper revealed that Grace wanted the December decision reversed. She argued that the court handed down an "erroneous decision". The court papers said that Grace together with son Russell Goreraza have never been to the alleged properties, stating, however, that the properties were under police securitisation. A police official Nyambo Viera who was allegedly investigating Ahmed in several cases, said that the protection of the properties was a police business that had nothing to do with Grace.The court papers further claimed that despite being aware that the Mugabes were not involved in the seizure of the properties, Ahmed's lawyers continued to launch a case against in order to "taint" her name "It is humbly submitted that the interim relief granted by Justice Phiri on December, 2016 must be discharged and in its place be recorded: ‘the application be and is hereby dismissed’. "The interim relief was directed towards the respondents who are clearly not connected to the properties in question and therefore it is misplaced and folly for first applicant [Ahmed] to persist with the need to have a flawed order confirmed when instead it must be discharged on the return dates," the court papers said.