Back
2026 Supreme(ZIM)(ZIM) 39717
Machipisa v Murambasvina and Others
FARAI GRACE MURAMBIWA MACHIPISA
versus
STEVEN MURAMBASVINA (In his capacity as the executor of estate late Philemon Garikai Murambiwa Machipisa DR 115/21)
and
THE MASTER OF THE HIGH COURT N.O
and
MARBLE MACHIPISA
HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE
Opposed Application
M Zvirahwa, for the applicant
A Masango, for the 1st respondent No appearance for the 2nd respondent
W Jiti, for the 3rd respondent
MHURI J: On 15 September 2025, this matter was placed before me as an urgent chamber application for an interdict pendente lite wherein applicant was seeking a Provisional Order whose Interim Relief was as follows:
“1. The Authority to sell stand 729 and 742 of Subdivision D of Grande issued to the 1st Respondent by the 2nd Respondent on 3 December 2024 be and is hereby temporarily suspended.
The First Respondent be and is hereby interdicted from selling, ceding, transferring or in any way disposing of the immovable properties of the estate namely Stands 729 and 742 of Subdivision D of Grande pending finalization of the will contest under case number HCH 6000/21.
The First Respondent and or any other party acting on his behalf is hereby temporarily interdicted from taking any steps to advertise, market, or secure a purchaser for the said immovable properties.”
Upon perusal and consideration of the papers filed and in terms of Rule 60 (9) of the High Court Rules S.I. 202/2021, I granted the Interim Relief.
Rule (60) Sub rule (9) provides as follows:
“Where in an application for a provisional order the judge is satisfied that the papers establish a prima facie case he or she shall grant a provisional order either in terms of the draft filed or as varied.”
The matter is now before me for the discharge or confirmation of the provisional order.
The final order being sought is in the following terms:
“The Authority to sell stand 729 and 742 of Subdivision D of Grande issued to the 1st Respondent by the 2nd Respondent on 3 December 2024 be and is hereby cancelled.
The First Respondent, STEVEN MURAMBASVINA, is hereby interdicted and restrained from administering the estate of the late PHILEMON GARIKAYI MURAMBIWA MACHIPISA DR 115/21, including but not limited to the sale of assets, distribution of property, or disbursement of funds, pending the final determination of this application.
The costs of this application shall be in the cause.”
The brief background facts to the application are that sometime in 2018 the late Philemon Garikayi Murambiwa Machipisa (applicant’s father), third respondent and three other shareholders of Machipisa Brothers (Pvt) Ltd, namely, Faustina Machipisa, Joseph Machipisa, Isaac Machipisa, entered into a Deed of Settlement wherein Stand Number 729 Subdivision D of Grande and Stand Number 742 Subdivision D of Grande were to be sold with all shareholders equally sharing the proceeds. That Deed of Settlement was reduced into a Court Order by ZHOU J (as he then was) under case number HCH 885/18, which Order is extant. Philemon Garikayi Murambiwa Machipisa then died testate leaving a Will. It is this Will that applicant caused the issuance of summons contesting the contents of under case number HCH6000/21. The trial is still pending, having reached the defence case.
Pending continuation of this trial, which was stalled by a postponement sine die pending an interlocutory application for leave to appeal, applicant then filed the urgent chamber application under HCHF 3819/25, seeking to interdict the first respondent as alluded to earlier in this judgment.
The application is strongly contested by the first and third Respondents. Both raised points in limine.
First Respondent raised three issues, to wit;
That the Court was functus officio
That the matter was res judicata
That there was material non disclosure.
Third Respondent’s issues were:
Defective notice of motion
That the matter is res judicata.
I heard submissions on both points in limine and
