HARARE — The High Court has granted Savvas Investments (Private) Limited permission to continue legal proceedings against OK Zimbabwe Limited over a disputed commercial property in Mount Pleasant, removing a significant procedural barrier created by the retailer’s corporate-rescue proceedings.
The ruling allows the landlord to proceed with an existing case concerning the occupation of its property at 48 Bond Street, Mount Pleasant, although it does not amount to an eviction order against OK Zimbabwe.
The Zimbabwe Financial Mail understands that Justice Lucy Mungwari ruled that Savvas had established sufficient grounds for the court to lift the statutory moratorium that ordinarily restricts legal proceedings against companies under corporate rescue.
The substantive dispute over the lease, its cancellation, the retailer’s continued occupation and any potential damages will still have to be determined in the main proceedings.
The case provides an important test of the balance between Zimbabwe’s corporate-rescue framework and the property rights of landlords whose commercial premises remain occupied during restructuring proceedings.
Lease dispute
The dispute arose from a lease entered into between Savvas and OK Zimbabwe in December 2024 for the Mount Pleasant property.
Savvas alleges that the retailer breached the agreement through failures relating to rental and other payments, as well as the maintenance of the premises.
The landlord subsequently cancelled the lease on December 12, 2025 and demanded that OK Zimbabwe vacate the property.
The retailer remained in occupation.
Savvas then issued summons on February 17, 2026, seeking confirmation of the cancellation, eviction, holding-over damages and payment of municipal rates.
Seven days later, on February 24, OK Zimbabwe entered voluntary corporate rescue.
The commencement of corporate rescue triggered the statutory moratorium on legal proceedings, requiring Savvas to obtain court permission before its existing case could continue.
The landlord subsequently approached the High Court for that permission.
Court weighs rescue against property rights
OK Zimbabwe opposed the application, arguing that allowing the proceedings to continue could interfere with the corporate-rescue process and potentially prejudice its creditors, employees and other stakeholders.
Justice Mungwari nevertheless found that the circumstances justified allowing the litigation to proceed.
A central consideration was the uncertainty surrounding the duration of the retailer’s corporate rescue.
OK Zimbabwe had previously indicated that it expected to emerge from the process by July 31. That date passed without the company exiting rescue, while no definitive alternative completion date was presented to the court.
The judge consequently found that Savvas faced continuing prejudice while the dispute remained frozen.
The landlord maintains that arrears, holding-over damages, municipal charges and electricity-related liabilities were continuing to accumulate while the retailer remained in occupation. Savvas also raised concerns regarding the condition of the property and associated repair costs.
OK Zimbabwe disputes those allegations and continues to challenge the validity of the lease cancellation.
The High Court did not determine those substantive questions at this stage.
Instead, the court was required to decide whether it was in the interests of justice to allow an existing legal dispute to proceed despite the corporate-rescue moratorium.
Why the ruling matters to commercial property
The decision has wider implications for Zimbabwe’s commercial property and restructuring markets because corporate rescue can create uncertainty for landlords whose properties are occupied by financially distressed tenants.
An analyst speaking to The Zimbabwe Financial Mail said the ruling highlights an important distinction between ordinary creditor claims and disputes concerning ownership or occupation of commercial property.
“The key issue is that the landlord was not simply attempting to recover an unpaid debt. It was asserting its rights in relation to a property which it says was being occupied after cancellation of the lease,” the analyst said.
Another restructuring specialist said the ruling should not be interpreted as weakening corporate rescue generally.
“The court has not dismantled the moratorium. It has effectively said that the protection cannot automatically prevent a pre-existing property dispute from being determined where the applicant can demonstrate continuing prejudice,” the specialist said.
The distinction could become increasingly relevant as more Zimbabwean businesses use corporate rescue as a mechanism for restructuring liabilities, preserving operations and negotiating with creditors.
Rescue plan becomes central
OK Zimbabwe argued that its rescue plan took account of the disputed premises.
However, the company did not produce sufficient evidence demonstrating that the property was indispensable to the restructuring process or that allowing the litigation to continue would necessarily undermine the rescue.
Justice Mungwari consequently found that OK Zimbabwe had not sufficiently demonstrated that continuation of the existing proceedings would fatally disrupt its rescue plan.
That finding was important because the court was not being asked to determine whether the retailer should remain at the premises permanently.
It was being asked whether Savvas should be allowed to pursue a case that had already commenced before corporate rescue began.
The timing of the proceedings therefore weighed in Savvas’ favour.
No automatic floodgates
The court also rejected the argument that allowing Savvas to proceed would automatically open the door for other creditors to bypass the corporate-rescue moratorium.
Each prospective applicant would still be required to satisfy the statutory requirements governing leave to continue proceedings against a company under corporate rescue.
This means the judgment does not create an automatic right for landlords or creditors to proceed against companies undergoing restructuring.
Instead, each application will continue to be assessed on its own circumstances.
Costs ruling
Savvas had sought attorney-and-client costs, arguing that the proceedings had been delayed while it awaited assurances that OK Zimbabwe would leave corporate rescue by July.
The court declined to impose punitive costs.
Justice Mungwari found that OK Zimbabwe was entitled to defend both the corporate-rescue process and its position on the alleged lease cancellation. The retailer’s opposition had not been demonstrated to be dishonest, vexatious or an abuse of court proceedings.
The company was consequently ordered to pay costs on the ordinary scale.
Savvas was granted leave to continue with case HCHC 110/26.
The substantive dispute remains unresolved
The latest ruling does not settle the underlying property dispute.
The main proceedings will still have to determine whether Savvas validly cancelled the lease, whether OK Zimbabwe has a continuing right to occupy the Mount Pleasant premises and whether the landlord is entitled to eviction, holding-over damages and other relief.
For the retail sector, however, the case illustrates the increasingly complex intersection between corporate restructuring, commercial leases and property rights.
For landlords, corporate rescue can create a period of uncertainty in which rental income, operating costs and property obligations continue even while conventional legal enforcement mechanisms are restricted.
For distressed companies, meanwhile, the statutory moratorium remains an important protection designed to give a rescue practitioner sufficient space to stabilise the business and formulate a viable restructuring strategy.
The High Court’s latest decision suggests that the protection is not absolute where an existing dispute concerns continuing rights over commercial property and the applicant can demonstrate that the delay is causing ongoing prejudice.
The next stage of the litigation will therefore be watched closely by Zimbabwe’s retail, property and restructuring sectors as the court turns from the procedural question of whether Savvas may proceed to the substantive question of who ultimately has the right to occupy the Mount Pleasant property.
