OK Zimbabwe could face an eviction battle over its Mount Pleasant premises after the High Court granted its landlord permission to resume legal proceedings against the retailer despite its ongoing corporate rescue process.
Justice Lucy Mungwari ruled in favour of Savvas Investments (Private) Limited, which wants to pursue its case over the property at 48 Bond Street.
Savvas claims OK Zimbabwe breached the lease by failing to pay rent and other charges on time and by allegedly failing to properly maintain the premises.
The landlord cancelled the lease on December 12 last year and subsequently approached the High Court seeking confirmation of the cancellation, eviction, holding-over damages and payment of municipal rates.
However, OK Zimbabwe entered voluntary corporate rescue on February 24, triggering a statutory moratorium that halted legal proceedings against the company.
Savvas then sought the court’s permission to continue with its case.
Opposing the application, OK Zimbabwe argued that allowing the proceedings to continue could interfere with its rescue process and prejudice its creditors, employees and other stakeholders.
Justice Mungwari, however, found that Savvas was suffering continuing prejudice while the dispute remained on hold.
The judge also noted that OK Zimbabwe had previously indicated that it expected to emerge from corporate rescue by July 31, but had not done so and could not provide a new exit date when the matter was heard.
The court held that the corporate rescue process could not effectively extend a disputed lease indefinitely.
However, the ruling does not amount to an eviction order against OK Zimbabwe.
The court has only allowed Savvas to proceed with the existing case. The main proceedings will still determine whether the lease was validly cancelled, whether OK Zimbabwe has a right to remain at the property and whether Savvas is entitled to eviction and damages.
Justice Mungwari also rejected Savvas’ request for punitive legal costs, finding that OK Zimbabwe was entitled to defend its position and challenge the alleged cancellation of the lease.
The retailer was ordered to pay the costs of the application on the ordinary scale.
The substantive dispute will now continue under case number HCHC 110/26.
