High Court dismisses Mudzingwa's appeal in evictio...

High Court dismisses Mudzingwa's appeal in eviction case, cites lack of merit

Nyashadzashe Ndoro

Chief Reporter

The High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by Boniface Mudzingwa against Nommbiz (Pvt) Ltd, citing that the matter has become academic and moot.

The appeal was related to an eviction case where Mudzingwa was ordered to vacate Kingsmead House, 154 Mbuya Nehanda Street, Harare.

The court ruled that the appeal had no practical effect or result, as the eviction had already been carried out and Mudzingwa had removed his belongings from the premises.

The judges, justices Fatima Chakapamambo Maxwell and Siyabona Musithu also noted that the lease agreement at the centre of the dispute had expired, and Mudzingwa's right to occupy the premises had terminated on December 31, 2022.

The court further held that even if it were in the interest of justice to determine the appeal, it would not succeed due to the lack of merit.

The court found that Mudzingwa's claim that he was not the tenant and therefore not in occupation of the premises was unfounded, and that Linsa Investments (Pvt) Ltd, the actual occupier, should have been the one to seek rescission of the default judgment.

"None of the factors highlighted above justifying the determining of a matter that is moot exist in this case. The lease agreement at the centre of the dispute expired. Appellant was given notice to vacate the premises which notice ran from 1 October 2022 to 31 December 2022. Appellant’s right to occupy the premises terminated on 31 December 2022," read part of the ruling.

"In any event, even if it was in the interest of justice to determine this appeal, it would not succeed. The Appellant claims that he was not the tenant and therefore not in occupation of the premises. He claims that Linsa Investments (Pvt) Ltd was the occupier and therefore ought to have been cited."

The judges ruled: "The appeal being moot and also not having any merits, the following order is appropriate. The appeal be and is hereby dismissed with costs.”