ZIFA (Pvt) Ltd finally breathed a sigh of relief after a
local company, LED Travel and Tours (Pvt) Ltd, recently conceded that the
property it had attached in order to recover over $300 000 owed by the Zimbabwe
Football Association (Zifa), was wrongly executed since it did not belong to the
football governing body.
In July last year, LED Travel and Tours approached the High
Court seeking to compel Zifa to settle its debt and in the process went ahead
and obtained a default judgment against Zifa (Pvt) Ltd, which judgment was
later rescinded.
The rescission of the judgment followed an application by
ZIfa’s director, Abdullah Ishmael Kassim, who filed a court application arguing
his company was a separate and distinct legal entity from the football
association.
On August 28 this year the Sheriff of the High Court, Macduff
Madega, then filed an application seeking confirmation of LED Travel and Tours’
consent to be reduced to an order of the court thereby granting Zifa authority
over its property.
In his order issued on September 4, 2017 by Justice Charles
Hungwe, the judge ruled: “The claimant’s (Zifa) claim to a certain piece of
land situate in the district of Salisbury called stand 1175 of Salisbury
Township Lands held under deed number 294/1983 also known as 53 Livingstone
Avenue, Harare; and a certain piece of land situate in the district of
Salisbury called stand 100 of Kensington Estate held under deed number
8771/1988 and also known as 53 Livingstone Avenue, Harare, placed under
attachment in execution of judgment HC4623/12 is hereby granted.
“The notice of attachment of the immovable property dated
August 6, 2015 issued by the applicant (Sheriff) is hereby set aside and the
properties described therein are declared not executable. The judgement
creditor (LED Travel) is to pay the claimant (Zifa) and the applicant’s costs.”
Before Justice Hungwe’s order, the Sheriff of the High
Court had approached the court seeking the confirmation of the consent order
between Zifa and LED Travel and Tours, which would effectively put the matter
to rest.
“Following the issuing of the interpleader notice, and
after the judgment creditor opposed the interpleader, the judgment creditor
consented to judgment being granted in the claimant’s favour,” Madega said.
“Accordingly, as contemplated by Order 8 Rule 55 of the
rules of this honourable court, the applicant seeks that the consent to
judgment be reduced to an order of this honourable court.”
Madega’s position was confirmed by one Bernard Gwarada, who
withdrew the matter on behalf of LED Travel and Tours.
“On November 12, 2015, the claimant instructed and caused
the applicant to issue an interpleader notice. On November 27, 2015, I
instructed my legal counsel to oppose the interpleader and I deposed to an
affidavit to this effect,” Gwarada said.
“Thereafter several applications were made in relation to
the matter and it has since come to my attention that the property attached was
in fact not the judgment debtor’s and I have been convinced that the
application was in fact well-grounded.”
He added: “I now, therefore, withdraw my opposition on
behalf of the judgment creditor and believe the interpleader should be granted.
Furthermore, I also believe the subject matter, ie, the immovable properties,
do belong to the claimant and not the judgment debtor.” newsday
0 comments:
Post a Comment