FORMER boxing promoter Stalin Mau-Mau has approached the High Court seeking the intervention of the court to stop the impending sale of his house by Homelink after the property was recently placed under judicial attachment over a $280 000 debt.
BY CHARLES LAITON
According to Mau-Mau, his property, Lot 350 of Greendale measuring 3 4116 hectares held under Deed of Transfer No 3221/2005, in the names of Joseph Shonhiwa and Caroline Magireta Shonhiwa, was placed under judicial attachment on April 21 this year.
The former boxing promoter said the attachment of his property followed a matter in which he was cited as a party to the proceedings involving the Shonhiwas, who had failed to settle a debt with Homelink.
“I was cited as the 4th defendant in that case since I am occupying the said residential property,” Mau-Mau said.
“It is not in dispute that the 3rd and 4th respondents (the Shonhiwas) owe a debt to the 1st respondent (Homelink). I am, however, concerned and traumatised that the only place which I have been calling home has been placed under judicial attachment and it will be sold, thereby rendering myself and my family destitute and homeless, notwithstanding that I have expressed my willingness to buy it back by paying off the debt.”
The judgment debt in favour of the State-owned financial institution is £204 906,14 which, if converted to United States dollars, amounts to $280 000, according to the court papers.
“I am willing to consider other available options if given time to buy back this property . . . To demand a once-off payment within a very short period would be rather unfair especially without consideration of other options such as cession of debt, mortgage financing and/or debt restructuring,” Mau-Mau said.
- Chamisa under fire over US$120K donation
- Mavhunga puts DeMbare into Chibuku quarterfinals
- Pension funds bet on Cabora Bassa oilfields
- Councils defy govt fire tender directive
Keep Reading
“It is also important to note that 1st respondent will suffer no prejudice if I am allowed to settle the debts owed to it by the 3rd and 4th respondents. I should not be treated as if I am the debtor, but someone who has offered to settle someone else’s debts, hence 1st respondent should be more accommodative and not vindictive.” The matter is yet to be set down for hearing.
