FORMER ReNaissance Financial Holdings group chief executive officer, Patterson Timba, has been declared insolvent by the High Court after failing to settle a $1 815 117 debt with First Mutual Holdings (Ltd).
BY CHARLES LAITON
The sequestration of the banker’s estate was made by High Court judge Justice David Mangota on June 8 this year, following an application by First Mutual Holdings sometime in February.
The court heard that sometime in February 2015, First Mutual Holdings obtained judgment against Timba for the payment of the claimed amount together with interest at the prescribed rate with effect from the date of judgment up to date of payment in full and costs of suit.
However, on March 11, 2015, First Mutual issued a writ of execution against Timba, who is also the owner of the now-defunct, Renaissance Merchant Bank (Ltd) (RMB), leading to the attachment of his goods which were sold only to raise $1 230.
After failing to raise enough money, First Mutual then caused attachment of Timba’s immovable property, but it was later discovered that the attached property was co-owned by Timba and his wife, hence, the Sheriff could not execute property claimed by a third party.
Consequently, First Mutual then petitioned the court, arguing that Timba had committed an act of insolvency in that he had failed to satisfy the writ of execution upon demand by the Sheriff.
However, Timba opposed the application laying blame on First Mutual, saying the latter’s intention was to cripple him and his RMB, adding the sequestration of his estate would make it impossible for him to pay the debt.
- 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
But, in his judgment, Justice Mangota dismissed Timba’s claim, saying the banker had indeed failed to satisfy the writ of execution and had no means whatsoever to raise the claimed amount.
“The applicant (First Mutual), in my view, meets all the requirement of the sequestration of the respondent (Timba). The outstanding part of the debt which he owes to the applicant is very substantial. Given his financial position, the probabilities are that he will not be able to pay it off,” Justice Mangota said.
“The respondent’s assertion which was to the effect that he would pay off the debt as soon as RMB recovers is as meaningless as he stated it. He did not state the date or period when RMB would recover, if it will. He did not say how he could cause it to recover, if it will. He did not state the circumstances under which it would recover. He submitted candidly though, that he was not employed and was unemployable because of his association with RMB which, according to him, was placed under curatorship.”
Justice Mangota said Timba’s statement which was to the effect that the placement of RMB under curatorship dissipated his estate, “says it all”.
