A BULAWAYO businessman and former South African Airways (SAA) boss, Elphas Mavune Maphisa has challenged the attachment of his property after losing a legal wrangle with a property dealer, John Pocock and neglecting to pay US$2 301 in costs of suit.
Pocock’s firm won two cases against Maphisa and the court ordered him to pay the cost of suit amounting to US$2 301, but he did not comply with the order.
After failing to comply, Maphisa got two writs of execution, one dated October 27, 2017 with the sheriff instructed to attach property worth US$1 401 and the second dated December 14, 2017 for attachment of property worth US$900.
Maphisa argues that the second attachment was done when he was in South Africa seeking medical attention and there was no one at his home. He added that he had alerted the sheriff on April 23, 2018 of his absence, but the writ was unlawfully enforced on April 27, 2018. The respondents prepared an inventory of movable goods without guidance and direction and failed or neglected to indicate the estimated value of the goods placed on attachment.
Following the execution of the writs, Maphisa filed summons at the Bulawayo High Court citing the Sheriff of the High Court and Justice minister Ziyambi Ziyambi as respondents.
On Wednesday, Maphisa and the respondents appeared before Justice Martin Makonese in a pre-trial conference in which the judge said the “plaintiff is advised that the basis of his claim against the first defendant is ill conceived”.
In his claim against the Sheriff, Maphisa submitted that defendant to “render proper account for goods unlawfully attached and sold by the additional sheriff in lieu of two writs of execution against movable property … the return of movable property stolen by the first defendant’s deputies being Hazel Rudaniko, Benias Rwizi, Lloyd Mateta or alternatively the sum of ZAR906 948 and US$1 750, replacement value thereof, damages to attached goods released back to plaintiff, over-payment on the judgment debt in the sum of US$442,29, damages for contumelia and humiliation in the sum of US$5 000 and additional costs for transport, insurance and customs duty and installation, which despite demand the defendant neglects or refused to pay.”