Africa-Press – Zimbabwe. A FORMER Cabinet minister will make a last-ditch bid to save his property worth US$750 000 today.
Munacho Mutezo, who was Water Resources and Infrastructural Development minister from 2005 to 2008, on Friday made an urgent application at the High Court of Zimbabwe under case number HCH4070/25.
The respondents in the matter are the Sheriff of Zimbabwe and Des Moines Farms (Pvt) Ltd, respectively.
The hearing for the chamber application is scheduled for today.
“Take notice that the above application for stay of execution will be heard and determined physically by the High Court of Zimbabwe at Harare before Honourable Mr Justice RF Manyangadze J on Monday, August 18, 2025 at 10am or so soon thereafter as counsel may be heard,” Mutezo stated in the notice of hearing.
Advocate Taona Sibanda is acting for the Des Moines Farms instructed by Brian Majamanda, while Mangwana and Partners retain instructions for Mutezo.
Mutezo said he was making the application on the basis that Des Moines Farms was granted a judgment in its favour by the High Court under case HCH123/22 in terms of which Fernicary Farm t/a Rutendo Farm, his farm, located in Odzi, Makoni district in Manicaland province, was ordered to pay US$455 000 or its equivalent in local currency at the applicable inter-bank rate of the day.
He said in December 2024, the Des Moines Farms caused a writ of execution to be issued by the registrar pursuant to a court order under HCH123/22.
The former minister said the Sheriff was thereafter instructed to proceed to Fernicary Farm to attach property for sale in execution of the court judgment under HCH123/22.
He said the Sheriff went on to attach property at the farm on February 20, 2025, adding that the attached property belonged to government and had been placed in his custody and that the property was listed in a confirmation letter from government, which he attached to the Friday application.
Mutezo argued that he caused interpleader proceedings to be instituted, which was done under case HCH1570/25 and that all pleadings were filed and the case was set down for hearing in July this year before Justice Samuel Deme.
He said the hearing did not proceed on July 17, 2025 and the matter was postponed to July 31, 2025.
“On July 23, 2025, the registrar issued a letter to litigants inquiring about their availability on July 30, 2025 for hearing of the matter since the court was no longer able to deal with it on July 31, 2025, due to unforeseen circumstances. The applicant indicated, through a letter, that the date was not amenable to it and the hearing ought to be pushed into the third term. Regardless, a notice of hearing was issued to the effect that the hearing of the matter was moved to July 30, 2025,” Mutezo filed in his heads of argument.
He said the case was heard on July 30, 2025 in his absence and a default judgment was granted under case HCH1570/25, adding that he instituted an application for rescission of the default judgment and “the case is pending before this honourable court under case HCH3802/25”.
Mutezo said despite having an application for rescission of judgment, the Sheriff is proceeding with a sale in execution of property for which he has laid a claim against through interpleader proceedings under case HCH1570/25.
He said the Sheriff’s action was prejudicial to his claim in respect of the attached property and would render a decision rendered in his favour under case HCH3802/25 futile and brutum fulmen (empty threat).
“The application is urgent and cannot wait in that there is a pending application for rescission of the default judgment which deals with his rights as well as the second respondent’s, “yet the first respondent is proceeding with the sale in execution, rendering the applicant’s claim futile”.
Mutezo said he learnt of the impending sale in execution in the afternoon of August 14, 2025 and “swiftly instituted the present urgent chamber application.”
The sale in execution was scheduled to start at 10am last Friday.
Mutezo prayed for the top court to suspend the auction “until the application for rescission is finalised”.
In opposing, Philemon Matibe, the director for Des Moines Farms, said Mutezo’s application was not urgent as it did not address in good faith the aspect of urgency.
“It is just full of bald assertions. I wish to clearly state that this matter is not urgent at all. Judgment in the main matter under HCH123/22 was handed down by this honourable court on November 29, 2024. The court processes had commenced sometime in July 2022,” Matibe said.
He said the property in issue was attached in February 2025 by the Sheriff and the need to act arose at that time, adding that Mutezo could not wait “for the date of reckoning to arrive and then file an urgent chamber application for stay of execution”.
“The urgency in issue as alleged by the applicant is self-created. This is not the urgency which was contemplated by the lawmaker. What constitutes urgency is not only the imminent arrival of the day of reckoning; a matter is urgent, if at the time the need to act arises, the matter cannot wait. Urgency which stems from a deliberate or careless abstention from action until the deadline draws near is not the type of urgency contemplated by the rules,” Matibe argued.
He said last Thursday, Mutezo’s lawyers wrote to him requesting a settlement, adding that the proposal was “a mockery” which they turned down.
For More News And Analysis About Zimbabwe Follow Africa-Press
