HARARE – Harare businessman, Tendai Mashamhanda has filed an urgent High Court application seeking to postpone pending eviction from his US$1,5 million home located in Harare’s upmarket Highlands suburb.
The son to prominent businessman Alex Mashamhanda received an eviction order on February 27, which was set to be enforced before February 29.
His pending eviction follows a High Court ruling later confirmed on appeal by the Supreme Court the businessman had fraudulently purchased the US$230,000 property from lawyer Pihwai Chiutsi which he later renovated to the value of US$1,5 million.
In an application filed on his behalf by lawyer Lovemore Madhuku, Mashamhanda argues the eviction notice issued by the Sheriff of the High Court was in breach of section 74 of the constitution which prohibits arbitrary eviction.
He cited as first respondent, Barriade Investments Pvt (Ltd), declared as the legal owners of the property by the courts, and the Sheriff of the High Court as second.
“By a Notice of Removal dated 26 February, 2024, the second respondent (Sheriff of the High Court) has given the applicant just slightly less than 72 hours’ notice of ejectment from his home.
“In issuing his aforesaid ‘Notice of Removal, the 2nd Respondent acted without checking whether or not the immovable property in question was a home within the contemplation of section 74 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe.
“72 hours notice of ejectment from a person’s home is unconstitutional as an infringement of the fundamental right to freedom from arbitrary eviction protected by section 74 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe,” read parts of the application.
The application further reads, “By virtue of section 74 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe, the 2nd Respondent cannot issue a “Notice of Removal arbitrarily in respect of homes. He/she is mandatorily required by the Constitution to ascertain whether it is an eviction from a home.
“If so, engage the occupiers with a view to giving them an opportunity to indicate what they consider to be a reasonable notice period in the light of any hardships they may experience.
“Obtain a court order regarding the reasonable notice period to be given (and) give the occupiers the reasonable period sanctioned by the court,” further read parts of the application.
Mashamhanda in his urgent application further contended that the High Court Sheriff failed to acknowledge the family members he resides with in the Highlands home.
“The applicant has used the immovable property in question as his home for the past 4 years and stays at the home with the following members of his family, wife, daughter, (5 years old), (and) son (4 years old).
“72 hours’ notice is not only arbitrary and irrational; it is also contrary to the true spirit of Rule 69(7) as read, mutatis mutandis, with Rule 71 sub rules 14 to 20.
“Further, the applicant has filed an appeal in SC 666/23 against the whole judgment of the High Court in Case Number 3124/22, being Judgment No. HH 637/23.
“That appeal will be heard tomorrow, that is, Thursday, 29 February, 2024, the very same day that the 2nd Respondent plans to evict applicant from his home.”
