Barriade Investments Pressures Sheriff to Evict Mashamhanda Prematurely
2 April 2024
Spread the love

By A Correspondent| In the ongoing legal battle between Barriade Investments (Pvt) Ltd and local businessman Tendai Mashamhanda, a contentious issue has emerged over the impending eviction of Mashamhanda from a property valued at US$1,500,000.

Recent legal documents reviewed by this publication reveal a dispute arising from a series of correspondences exchanged between the involved parties, notably a letter dated March 26, 2024, from the Applicant. This letter has drawn criticism for allegedly pressuring the Sheriff to expedite Mashamhanda’s eviction.

Barriade Investments, through its legal representatives, expressed dissatisfaction with the Sheriff’s actions, citing previous notices issued on December 8, 2023, and February 26, 2024. The Applicant contends that no further notice is required and instructs the Sheriff to proceed urgently with executing the writ of eviction. Failure to comply may lead to legal action against the Sheriff and formal complaints to judicial authorities, the letter warns.

In response, Mashamhanda’s legal team raised concerns over what they perceive as an attempt to manipulate the legal system for premature eviction. They argue that the Applicant misinterpreted a High Court order issued on March 21, 2024, in case HCH1189/24.

Mashamhanda’s representatives point out the Applicant’s apparent unawareness of Rule 60(19) of the High Court Rules 2021, which dictates the handling of non-urgent applications. They emphasize that such cases are transferred to the ordinary court roll without the need for fresh applications.

“This means that case HCH1189/24 has simply been transferred to the ordinary court roll and is still pending,” states Mashamhanda’s legal team. “In light of the clear and unambiguous meaning of the said Rule, the Sheriff cannot and should not carry out the eviction until the matter HCH1189/24, which is before the Courts, has been determined.”

Furthermore, Mashamhanda’s legal team asserts that the initial failure to execute the eviction was not due to an interdict or stay of execution but because of the pending court application. They argue that the Sheriff should stay execution until the matter is resolved, as per established legal practice.