Technoimpex JSC v Rajendrakumar Jogi and Others

The applicant, Technoimpex JSC, is a Bulgarian registered company and subsidiary of Chimimport, which also has another subsidiary called Bulchimex Germany. These entities owned immovable properties in Zimbabwe, including Bath Mansions Flats at 32 Bath Road, Avondale, Harare (held under Deed of Transfer 1657/89) and a Mount Pleasant property. In 2013, the second respondent (Sarah Hwingwiri), a property broker, was mandated to sell a property owned by Bulchimex Germany in the Grange but converted the proceeds to her own use. She subsequently devised a scheme to steal the applicant's properties by registering Zimbabwean entities with similar names (Bulchimex Zimbabwe and Technoimpex Zimbabwe). The first respondent (Rajendrakumar Jogi), an associate of the second respondent, fraudulently claimed to have purchased the Mount Pleasant property and obtained a default judgment in HC 2972/17 through false returns of service. This judgment was later rescinded in HC 2011/18. On 14 August 2019, the applicant discovered that the second respondent had applied for a rates clearance certificate to transfer the Bath Mansions Flats to the third respondent (Mustak Girach), prompting this urgent application for an interdict.

• Whether the application was urgent
• Whether there was misjoinder of the second and sixth respondents
• Whether a supplementary founding affidavit could be filed and considered
• Whether the applicant established the requirements for an interdict: (i) a clear right, (ii) irreparable harm actually committed or reasonably apprehended, (iii) absence of similar protection through any other remedy, and (iv) balance of convenience

The application was granted. The court ordered: (1) deletion and expungement of the transfer of title from applicant to first respondent under Deed of Transfer 1080/19 and Certificate of Registered Title 1081/19; (2) the Registrar of Deeds not to transfer the property without leave of the High Court; (3) applications for such leave to be on notice to the applicant; (4) the Sheriff not to carry out evictions until all pending High Court matters concerning ownership are finalized; (5) the Sheriff to request written confirmation from applicant's legal practitioners before any eviction; (6) costs against the party opposing the final order on a legal practitioner and client scale. Interim relief was granted interdicting the respondents from transferring, alienating, or encumbering the property and requiring all court processes to be served on the applicant's legal practitioners.

The binding legal principles established are: (1) For an interdict to be granted, an applicant must establish: (i) a clear right on a balance of probabilities, (ii) irreparable harm actually committed or reasonably apprehended, (iii) the absence of similar protection through any other remedy, and (iv) balance of convenience. (2) Under Order 13 Rule 87, misjoinder or non-joinder of parties does not defeat an application, and the court may determine issues affecting the rights and interests of parties properly before it. (3) An application stands or falls on its founding affidavit, but a supplementary affidavit may lawfully be filed where new matters arise after filing, provided it is given to the other party before the hearing to avoid prejudice. (4) Urgency is established where new circumstances arise (such as discovery of imminent fraudulent transfer) that necessitate immediate action, even if the applicant was aware of earlier related proceedings.

The court observed that the applicant "did not sit on its laurels" but actively pursued its rights through previous court applications (HC 2011/18 and HC 2012/18), indicating that diligent pursuit of remedies negates arguments of delay. The court also noted that a supplementary affidavit is "only prejudicial to the other party if the supplementary affidavit was not given to the other party before the hearing of the matter and the other party feels it has been ambushed," suggesting a practical approach to procedural fairness rather than strict formalism.

This case demonstrates the Zimbabwean courts' robust protection of property rights against fraudulent schemes involving the creation of similarly-named entities and abuse of court processes to obtain fraudulent default judgments. It affirms that misjoinder or non-joinder is not fatal to applications under Order 13 Rule 87, and clarifies the circumstances justifying urgency in property protection cases. The case also illustrates the court's willingness to grant comprehensive interdictory relief to prevent irreparable harm to lawful property owners where there is evidence of systematic fraud involving multiple parties and court processes.