High Court sheriff in foiled attempt to evict businessman Mashamhanda

Spread This News

By Staff Reporter

The High Court sheriff Thursday attempted to remove businessman Tendai Mashamhanda from his US$1,5 million mansion despite there being ongoing litigation regarding the matter, this publication is reliably informed.

The sheriff went to effect eviction but could not do as planned with circumstances behind the foiled attempt not clear yet.

Mashamhanda is embroiled in a bitter legal battle with Bariade Investments (Pvt) Ltd over the house, which he has been occupying for the past four years.

Mashamhanda, son of the business mogul Alex Mashamhanda of Mashwede Holdings, bought the Highlands property for US$230 000 from Harare lawyer Pihwai Chiutsi.

The house was sold to him while it was under judicial attachment sometime in September 2017.

Bariade Investments subsequently purchased the property at a valid Sheriff’s sale in circumstances where it had already obtained defective title.

Mashamhanda obtained tainted title to the property on 5 May 2022 and has been in occupation of the property from 2020 to date.

While acknowledging that he has lost the house to Bariade Investments, Mashamhanda earlier this month filed an urgent chamber application at the High Court seeking a six months extension of his eviction notice.

This was after he was given a 72 hours notice to vacate the house.

Mashamhanda said the place has been his home and his minor children risks being homeless if he was not given more time to look for alternative accommodation.

Mashamhanda also filed an appeal at the  Supreme Court challenging his eviction before judgement was reserved on the matter.

Late last year, the High Court ordered his eviction from the house after ruling that the property was fraudulently bought.

The presiding judge Justice Takuva, who ordered his eviction, later recused himself from the matter before another judge, Justice Jacob Mafusire, took over and struck the matter off the roll.

Mashamhanda through his lawyers argued that by striking off the matter from the urgent roll, the High Court effectively placed the matter on a normal roll, which means that the case is yet to be finalised hence eviction could not be executed.

Prior to the intended eviction, Mashamhanda through his lawyers Rangarirai and Partners had written to the Sheriff stating that applicant’s appreciation of the legal processes and procedures was being clouded by his eagerness to have the eviction effected.

“The Sheriff did not carry out the initial eviction not because there was an interdict or there was a stay of execution, but because there was a pending court application.

“The act of filing a court application and notifying the Sheriff of the same is sufficient ground to stop an eviction.

“We submit that the situation remains the same, that is to say, there is still a pending court application and in light of that simple reason, the Sheriff cannot and should not evict the respondent until the matter is determined,” he said in one of the letters dated March 26 gleaned by

Mashamhanda said the correct legal position is for the Sheriff to stay execution until the matter has been determined.

“This has always been the practice and there is no reason for the Sheriff to depart from this well-established practice,” wrote his lawyers.

Asked why the eviction failed Mashamhanda said, ” I was not at home and I’m not aware.”