High Court halts disputed rent writ

Fidelis Munyoro, Chief Court Reporter

THE High Court has stayed the execution of a disputed writ in the legal battle between S. Nyanhokwe Hand Made Jewellers and former ZINARA director Simon Taranhike over unpaid rent, extending the prolonged dispute.

A writ is a legal document issued by a judge or authority, ordering someone to do or stop doing a specific action.

At the centre of this saga lies Taranhike’s determined bid to shield his property from attachment, stemming from a 2020 default judgment obtained by the jewelry company for rent arrears.

1. Nyanhokwe, armed with the 2020 judgment, had initially secured a writ of execution, prompting the Sheriff of the High Court to attach Taranhike’s property.

However, Taranhike challenged the judgment, filing an application to rescind the default ruling.

That application, however, has languished unresolved in the High Court, leaving the matter in legal limbo.

Amid this inertia, S. Nyanhokwe, claiming inactivity on Taranhike’s part, revived the default judgment in 2022 and obtained a fresh writ of execution. This move reignited the legal tussle, as it led to the Sheriff once again taking steps to attach Taranhike’s property.

The issuance of the new writ spurred Taranhike into action. He swiftly approached the High Court, contesting the validity of the 2022 writ on the grounds that the original 2020 writ remained extant and enforceable until the judgment debt was satisfied.

Justice Esther Muremba agreed with Taranhike’s argument, finding that S. Nyanhokwe had not followed proper legal procedures in seeking to revive the default judgment and issue a new writ.

The court held that the original writ retained its legal force, rendering the subsequent writ irregular.

In her ruling, Justice Muremba also dismissed S. Nyanhokwe’s preliminary objection, which sought to argue that the matter was not urgent.

She found merit in Taranhike’s assertion that the imminent risk of losing his property to attachment necessitated urgent judicial intervention.

While the court acknowledged Taranhike’s dilatory conduct in prosecuting his rescission application, it nonetheless determined that procedural improprieties on the part of S. Nyanhokwe could not be overlooked.

The High Court granted Taranhike a reprieve, staying the execution of the writ pending the resolution of his rescission application.

In a further blow to S. Nyanhokwe, the court ordered the jewelry company to pay costs on a higher scale, a measure reserved for instances of egregious litigation conduct.

This ruling underscores the intricate interplay of procedural law and substantive justice, as the High Court strives to balance the enforcement of valid judgments with the protection of litigants’ rights.

For now, S. Nyanhokwe Hand Made Jewellers must wait a little longer for closure, while Taranhike’s property remains shielded—at least until the rescission application is finally determined.