Chronicle Editor
Court Reporter
BULAWAYO High Court judge Justice Martin Makonese, has ruled in favour of a local businessman Mr Mohammed Zakariya Patel, who has been involved in a protracted dispute with a local woman over ownership of a house in Hillside suburb.
The woman, Naome Thakataka, had approached the Bulawayo High Court seeking to reverse the transfer of her Hillside house after Mr Patel had bought the property through an auction conducted by the Sheriff of the High Court after it was attached in 2018 over a $29 920 debt owed to Solusi University.
In court papers, Thakataka said her house was transferred to a “non-existent company” known as Summergate Investments (Private) Limited.
The house was sold to the businessman for $76 000 after the Sheriff said he was the highest bidder.
Thakataka was arguing that the house, which is located in a “sought-after area”, was sold at an unreasonably low price yet there was a buyer who at the time wanted to pay $90 000. In the court application, Thakataka, cited the deputy Sheriff of the High Court, Patel, Summergate Investments, Solusi University and the Registrar of Deeds as first, second, third, fourth and fifth respondents, respectively.
She said Solusi University attached the house, which was sold to Patel on March 23, 2018.
Thakataka subsequently challenged the sale but lost the case.
She went back to court to challenge the verdict, alleging that the auction was conducted in a fraudulent manner.
However, Justice Makonese dismissed her claim.
He said: “What is abundantly clear is that the applicant in whose name the property was transferred through the deed of transfer is the owner of the property. This prima facie makes the applicant the owner of the property thereby entitling him to the remedy of rei vindicatio. The respondent is on the face of it no longer the owner of the property that was sold to another in execution. The respondent’s efforts at cancellation of the sale have been futile and thus the status quo persists. The respondent is desperately trying to invent a defence where there is none.
“It can be noted that the respondent did not have to wait for an application for rei vindicatio to contest what in respondent’s view is fraud on the part of the Sheriff in sale of the property. The respondent was clearly unable to articulate the nature of the fraud allegedly perpetrated and against whom it committed. It remains open to the respondent to challenge the sale and prove its allegations. Until then, the applicant is well within its rights to seek vindication.”
Online Reporter