Online Reporter
Fidelis Munyoro
Chief Court Reporter
SMM Holdings administrator’s legal fight against former employee, Mr Maxwell Siziba, collapsed after the High Court ruled that the company’s summary judgment application had not been authorised by the administrator holding office when the matter was filed.
Justice Ngoni Nduna struck the matter off the roll with costs after finding that SMM Holdings (Pvt) Ltd, which is under reconstruction, had failed to show that its administrator at the time, Mr Munashe Shava, had authorised the application seeking Siziba’s eviction from a company house in Zvishavane.
The dispute centres on House Number 20 School Avenue, Noelvale, which Mr Siziba occupied during his employment with SMM Holdings.
His employment ended on 22 October 2011 and he was required to vacate the property within 90 days. He remained in occupation, arguing that the company owed him salary arrears and terminal benefits.
SMM Holdings and its former administrator, Mr Afaras Gwaradzimba, sought Siziba’s eviction through summary judgment proceedings filed on 6 October 2025.
Mr Siziba challenged the application, arguing that Mr Gwaradzimba had ceased to be administrator after General Notice 1007/25 appointed Mr Shava on 16 May 2025. He contended that authority relied upon by the applicants had been granted by Mr Gwaradzimba in November 2020 and could not support proceedings pursued after the change in administration.
In his ruling, Justice Nduna held that authority to act for the company vested in the administrator holding office at the relevant time.
“Applying the ordinary and literal meaning of section 6, it is clear that the powers of control and management of the company vest in ‘the administrator,’ namely the incumbent administrator holding office at the relevant time,” he said.
The judge added: “Accordingly, once Mr Shava was appointed administrator in May 2025, authority to authorise legal proceedings on behalf of the First Applicant vested in him.”
Justice Nduna found that no authority from Mr Shava had been produced before the court.
“No such authority was produced before this court rendering the administrator’s authority defective,” he said.
The court ruled that the preliminary objection succeeded and ordered that the matter be struck off the roll with costs on the ordinary scale.
