Setsail Equipment (Pvt) Ltd v Javington Investments (Pvt) Ltd

The first respondent obtained a default judgment against the applicant on 16 February 2012 under HC 3351/11 for US$9,099.00 in arrear rentals, cancellation of a lease agreement, and eviction from 112A Fenleigh Building, Fife Street, Bulawayo. The summons were served on the applicant on 2 November 2011, and the applicant entered an appearance to defend on 5 December 2011 but failed to file a plea. After the first respondent filed a notice of intention to bar on 20 January 2012, the applicant was barred on 30 January 2012, leading to the default judgment. The applicant filed an application for rescission on 21 February 2012 under HC 551/12. The Deputy Sheriff had already executed writs under HC 3351/11, attaching property and effecting eviction, before the applicant filed this urgent application seeking a stay of execution.

• Whether an interim interdict can be granted to stay execution after the Deputy Sheriff has already executed the judgment and removed the applicant's property and effected eviction
• Whether an interim interdict is an appropriate remedy for past invasions of rights already taken away by operation of law

The application was dismissed with costs.

An interim interdict is not a remedy for past invasions of rights and will not be granted to a person whose rights in property have already been taken away by operation of law at the time of making the application for interim relief. An interdict serves to protect existing rights in property and cannot be granted to restore property already removed from the applicant's possession pursuant to lawful execution.

The court noted that the applicant had filed a separate application for rescission under HC 551/12 which was opposed and awaiting set down, implying that this would have been the more appropriate procedural route for the applicant to pursue rather than seeking a stay of execution after the writ had already been executed.

This case confirms the principle that interim interdicts are prospective remedies designed to prevent future harm and protect existing rights, not to reverse completed acts or restore rights already lost through legal processes. It reinforces that once execution has been completed and property rights have been extinguished by operation of law, an interdict cannot be used to reverse those completed actions. The proper remedy in such circumstances would be rescission of the underlying judgment or appeal, not an interim interdict.