THE Bulawayo High Court has struck off the roll an urgent application filed by Widerange Technologies (Private) Limited and Benjamin Shoko seeking to block their eviction by Zimre Property Investments Limited, ruling that the application was based on a defective certificate of urgency.
Justice Nokuthula Moyo made the determination in a matter heard between April 7 and August 3, 2026, involving a dispute over execution of an eviction order issued under case number HCBC 2513/23.
Widerange Technologies and Shoko approached the court seeking an order interdicting Zimre Property Investments from proceeding with execution of the writ of ejectment.
The applicants had previously approached the court with an urgent application on March 9, 2026, but the matter was struck off the roll on the understanding that the eviction had already been completed.
According to the judgment, the eviction process commenced on March 11 and was only partially executed, with the applicants remaining in occupation of the premises after securing themselves inside with a padlock.
However, Justice Moyo found that the applicants' attempt to revive the dispute as an urgent matter was procedurally defective.
Zimre Property Investments opposed the application and raised preliminary objections, arguing that the certificate of urgency was irregular because it had been attested by the applicants' legal practitioner on March 19, despite the eviction having allegedly taken place on March 10.
The company argued that there was therefore no longer any urgency capable of justifying placement of the matter on the urgent roll.
- SA name strong A side for Zim tour
- Cover-up feared in slain CCC activist’s case
- Cover-up feared in slain CCC activist’s case
- Storm clouds over Byo council
Keep Reading
Zimre also argued that the applicants were seeking to stay an execution that had already taken place and had approached the court with “dirty hands” by claiming to remain in occupation despite having been evicted.
Justice Moyo upheld the objection concerning urgency.
“I find that the certificate of urgency is irregular and defective,” the judge ruled.
The judge said the certificate purported to make an eviction urgent on March 19 when the eviction had already occurred on March 10.
“The legal practitioner attesting to urgency did so without applying their mind to the matter and the events at hand,” Justice Moyo said.
The court noted that the applicants' own affidavit claimed that the eviction had only been partially carried out, while the Sheriff's return of service stated that the eviction had been duly executed on March 11.
Justice Moyo said the inconsistency further undermined the applicants' claim of urgency.
“For that reason again, there can be no urgency in a bid to stay execution that has already been affected,” the judge ruled.
The court consequently found that the matter was not urgent and ordered that it be struck off the urgent roll.
Zimre Property Investments was also awarded costs.
The ruling means the court did not determine the substantive merits of the applicants' challenge to the eviction. The application was dismissed on procedural grounds after the court found that the requirements for urgent relief had not been met.
The applicants were represented by Ncube and Partners, while Hove and Associates represented Zimre Property Investments.
