Munacho Mutezo,
who was Water Resources and Infrastructural Development minister from 2005 to
2008, on Friday made an urgent application at the High Court of Zimbabwe under
case number HCH4070/25.
The respondents
in the matter are the Sheriff of Zimbabwe and Des Moines Farms (Pvt) Ltd,
respectively.
The hearing for
the chamber application is scheduled for today.
“Take notice
that the above application for stay of execution will be heard and determined
physically by the High Court of Zimbabwe at Harare before Honourable Mr Justice
RF Manyangadze J on Monday, August 18, 2025 at 10am or so soon thereafter as
counsel may be heard,” Mutezo stated in the notice of hearing.
Advocate Taona
Sibanda is acting for the Des Moines Farms instructed by Brian Majamanda, while
Mangwana and Partners retain instructions for Mutezo.
Mutezo said he
was making the application on the basis that Des Moines Farms was granted a
judgment in its favour by the High Court under case HCH123/22 in terms of which
Fernicary Farm t/a Rutendo Farm, his farm, located in Odzi, Makoni district in
Manicaland province, was ordered to pay US$455 000 or its equivalent in local
currency at the applicable inter-bank rate of the day.
He said in
December 2024, the Des Moines Farms caused a writ of execution to be issued by
the registrar pursuant to a court order under HCH123/22.
The former
minister said the Sheriff was thereafter instructed to proceed to Fernicary
Farm to attach property for sale in execution of the court judgment under
HCH123/22.
He said the
Sheriff went on to attach property at the farm on February 20, 2025, adding
that the attached property belonged to government and ha been placed in his
custody and that the property was listed in a confirmation letter from
government, which he attached to the Friday application.
Mutezo argued
that he caused interpleader proceedings to be instituted, which was done under
case HCH1570/25 and that all pleadings were filed and the case was set down for
hearing in July this year before Justice Samuel Deme.
He said the
hearing did not proceed on July 17, 2025 and the matter was postponed to July
31, 2025.
“On July 23,
2025, the registrar issued a letter to litigants inquiring about their
availability on July 30, 2025 for hearing of the matter since the court was no
longer able to deal with it on July 31, 2025, due to unforeseen circumstances.
The applicant indicated, through a letter, that the date was not amenable to it
and the hearing ought to be pushed into the third term. Regardless, a notice of
hearing was issued to the effect that the hearing of the matter was moved to
July 30, 2025,” Mutezo filed in his heads of argument.
He said the
case was heard on July 30, 2025 in his absence and a default judgment was
granted under case HCH1570/25, adding that he instituted an application for
rescission of the default judgment and “the case is pending before this
honourable court under case HCH3802/25”.
Mutezo said
despite having an application for rescission of judgment, the Sheriff is
proceeding with a sale in execution of property for which he has laid a claim
against through interpleader proceedings under case HCH1570/25.
He said the
Sheriff’s action was prejudicial to his claim in respect of the attached
property and would render a decision rendered in his favour under case
HCH3802/25 futile and brutum fulmen (empty threat).
“The
application is urgent and cannot wait in that there is a pending application
for rescission of the default judgment which deals with his rights as well as
the second respondent’s, “yet the first respondent is proceeding with the sale
in execution, rendering the applicant’s claim futile”.
Mutezo said he
learnt of the impending sale in execution in the afternoon of August 14, 2025
and “swiftly instituted the present urgent chamber application.”
The sale in
execution was scheduled to start at 10am last Friday.
Mutezo prayed
for the top court to suspend the auction “until the application for rescission
is finalised”.
In opposing,
Philemon Matibe, the director for Des Moines Farms, said Mutezo’s application
was not urgent as it did not address in good faith the aspect of urgency.
“It is just
full of bald assertions. I wish to clearly state that this matter is not urgent
at all. Judgment in the main matter under HCH123/22 was handed down by this
honourable court on November 29, 2024. The court processes had commenced
sometime in July 2022,” Matibe said.
He said the
property in issue was attached in February 2025 by the Sheriff and the need to
act arose at that time, adding that Mutezo could not wait “for the date of
reckoning to arrive and then file an urgent chamber application for stay of
execution”.
“The urgency in
issue as alleged by the applicant is self-created. This is not the urgency
which was contemplated by the lawmaker. What constitutes urgency is not only
the imminent arrival of the day of reckoning; a matter is urgent, if at the
time the need to act arises, the matter cannot wait. Urgency which stems from a
deliberate or careless abstention from action until the deadline draws near is
not the type of urgency contemplated by the rules,” Matibe argued.
He said last
Thursday, Mutezo’s lawyers wrote to him requesting a settlement, adding that
the proposal was “a mockery” which they turned down. Newsday
0 comments:
Post a Comment